Mini 391 - Fairytale Mafia, Game Over

[Seol]

Original Roll String: 1d11 (STATIC)

1 11-Sided Dice: (10) = 10

vote: bird111

for divestment of accountability.

[Seol]

Oh, there's an actual roll-dice option on the server? Hunh. When did this place get so fancy?

We've had dice tags for about two years now.

I'm sure you are, Mr. Ripley. But some are not so impressed with flashy word things.

If I don't speak monosyllabically, my style will be noted over the substance. Noted for future reference.

Big words, Seoul. Counting with clapping, I get 27 syllables.

I am NOT the capital of South Korea.

Hey guys, forgive me for being English, sheesh!

FOS:Rathyr

for trying to create a bandwagon so early on.
Its always a supicious trate.

You're English? I suppose you'd have to be to have spelling that bad.

Would you have FOS'd Rathyr if he'd placed that third vote on somone other than yourself?

divestment of accountability.

Well I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm impressed.

Honestly, this is like 1/1000th of a mafia tell, trying to buddy up to somebody, but I see nothing worse out there on the board right now.

FOS: Ripley

Juicy. OK, let's break this down:

Honestly,

Bad start. Starting anything with "Honestly" is a tell that you are

not

being honest.

this is like 1/1000th of a mafia tell,

Disclaiming your own position is also a tell. Here, you are not disclaiming it completely, but effectively doing so by playing it down to the point of irrelevance.

trying to buddy up to somebody,

You're kidding, right? Buddying-up is all about implied

trust

, not flattery. That was banter.

but I see nothing worse out there on the board right now.

You don't? You don't think it's worth remarking on the third vote for Dodgy, or his OMGUS FOS response? You don't see anything in my comments on bird111

which you quoted?

But that's not the point, it's very early in day 1, you don't expect to see anything of real merit. Stating that you don't is again a vibe of trying too hard.

FOS: Ripley

If you see nothing worse, why didn't you vote for him?

Interesting little to-and-fro follows this too:

Don't you know that being suitably alarmed is 999/1000th of a scum tell? This just isn't your game.

Unvote, Vote: LuckayLuck

for aparently seeing nothing else more suspicious. One should look harder, then.

My vote on Green Crayons is no longer random. I'm now voting him for accusing me of something ridiculous. Everybody was laying low, no sign of mafia anymore, I made a suggestion that I saw nobody as being mafia-ish so I pointed out a small thing. Now, he's voting for me because apparently there was something bigger.

You honestly think there's something more suspicious? What was it before what I quoted?

At this point I would disagree with GreenCrayons. Being suitably alarmed is

not

a scum tell. Being inappropriately alarmed, however,

is

. LL is being inappropriately alarmed. The point isn't just about not seeing anything suspicious, it's about

saying

that you're not seeing anything suspicious. It's almost as if you're trying too hard to establish that you don't have a clue who the scum are.

In other news, I think that Echo419 demonstrated a 1/100th townie tell. CONTRARY to what you think actually GC. I think the more posts that happens, the clearer a pitcure and story is painted for townie observation.

There's no such thing as a "townie tell". Tells are what happen when someone is less than perfect at keeping private information or motivations hidden. Townies don't hide.

Reading ahead, seems IH and GC agree with me. Yay us!

Now, this

is

interesting:

Granted, now I'm curious as to why you think Echo's post made him a bit more on the town side for you. His comment "Seems like they're jumping on each other for small reasons." seems like he's reaching for something to post simply so he can post something, which is what I've done a few times while scum. Granted, it's not much and is a pretty weak suspicion point (more or less just giving me a nudge to scruitinize his posts a bit more), but it's there nonetheless. I'm curious as to why he was moved in the opposite direction in your opinion.

It's page 1 on a day 2 start. You also just seemed to contradict yourself. He's reaching for something to post, and posts a small suspicion. You say you do that as scum. You then say that's not much, and is still a weak suspicion.

From my reading, not at all. The point isn't about posting small suspicions, it's about reaching for something so he's got something to post. GreenCrayons isn't finding it difficult to find things to post and state opinions. I'd list it as a minor misunderstanding/misrep.

HOWEVER....

Unless I misunderstood you.

You give GC an opportunity to respond and clarify. GC doesn't take it, despite having made a couple of relatively in-depth posts. He continues his conversation with LL, and ignores an attack which is accusing him of something genuinely scummy and earned him a vote. Avoiding/ignoring solid attacks is a useful tell.

See, as a townie, I want more pages of "spam" to be able to find mafia. The way it was put, the very nonchalant "I was hoping for three pages of spam" thing very minorly says "hey, I'm a townie trying to figure things out."

What do you mean by "spam" here? How does moving from "spam" to discussion make it harder to find mafia?

At this moment in time, I think that Echo is the most townish of all of you, which isn't saying much. It's a small hunch, the way he worded the 'wish-for-spam' thing. I'm somebody who actually really likes delving into townie tells, and I believe that Echo expressed one.

How do we know you're not a scumbuddy bolstering a partner early?

...

FOS: IH

---
(author's note: I have thought about how to respond to this for a long time, and this post is the well thought out and deliberate response.)

Considering that this all started with the post where you suggested Ripley was buddying up to me, it seems like a) your behaviour is much more like buddying-up than Ripley's was (note the implied trusat) and b) you're not in the best position to criticise people suggesting that you're buddying up. Smacks a little of hypocrisy.

In other news, I think that Echo419 demonstrated a 1/100th townie tell. CONTRARY to what you think actually GC. I think the more posts that happens, the clearer a pitcure and story is painted for townie observation.

the "CONTRARY to what you think actually GC" could have applied to the first or last sentence. When originally reading through, I mistakingly applied it to the third sentence rather than the first, which you apparently were meaning for it to reference. Therefore, I thought you were saing contrary to what I believe, more posts are a good thing. Yay, confusion, etc., etc.

I don't buy this. It's totally clear to me that the "CONTRARY to what you think actually GC" applies to the first sentence, and GC's clearly got a good grasp of English. Feels to me like GC was looking for something to argue with LL about.

Rather, I meant this to say "Just because he says that he hopes there is more spam in no way equates him to a townie "tell"

in my opinion,

which I agre with IH in their nonexistance." Don't want to get overzealous in my convictions, after all.

Now this seems totally unnecessary and just a little over-defensive - of

course

it was your opinion. Back to the whole point about disclaiming your own position.

In summation, both GC and LL look scummy to a degree, and they're the two who have posted the most.

vote: LuckayLuck

because he's by far the worse of the two, GC's tells have been fewer and more subtle (and therefore possible misreads) but they still earn him an

FOS: GreenCrayons

.

[Seol]

Being suitably alarmed is not a scum tell.

That was sarcasm in my post. Hence the "999/1000th" comment, as simple math would add up to 1000/1000th of a scum tell, ie: he must be scum. Obviously, I didn't vote him because it was sarcasm/a stupid joke. The whole post was.

Interesting you felt the need to say it, when you consider that in context:

Being suitably alarmed is

not

a scum tell. Being inappropriately alarmed, however,

is.

LL is being inappropriately alarmed.

I thought it was fairly clear the first comment was being flip, leading up to the serious point. Not sure what that means, I might come back to it later.

See beginning of post.

Your excuse is convenient... but plausible. Reserving judgment on that one.

Also, if there's one thing that is constant in all of my games, is that I love arguing. It's a personal flaw, as you can ask any of my friends (well, you can't seeing as how you don't know them, but whatever; it's the principle).

I can tell.

I love arguing,

even if I don't believe the side that I'm on

, just because I like it - it probably stems from a desire to have everyone at least see my point of view. Therefore, I will argue and respond to points

regardless of my alignment

, I can promise you.

That's twice you seem to draw attention to the fact you'd be playing this way as scum in as many sentences.

If I ever miss anything that needs to be addressed, point it out to me and you can be sure that I'll get to it.

Oh, I will do. However in this case it wasn't that the point needed to be addressed so much as that you neglected to address it that I found noteworthy. Of course, you have your explanation.

But feel free to chalk up suspicious points under my name.

"Go ahead, find me suspicious" comments always ring alarm bells with me. Not in an "ok, I was wrong, fair enough" but "you're wrong, this is why, but go ahead and find me suspicious if you like". If I'm wrong, then I

shouldn't

be finding you suspicious - saying it's OK to find you suspicious for the behaviour is tacitly acknowledging it

was

suspicious.

Making a point, it's what I was attempting to do. Obviously there's a division of thought between Luckay and myself, be it from confusion, misunderstanding, different play styles or whathaveyou. Regardless, I don't feel like putting a further division between Luckay and myself by out and out claiming that what he thinks is completely wrong; after all, it is merely opinion. Maybe there are town tells.

There aren't. There are power-role tells, sure, but there's no such thing as a townie tell, because of what a tell

is

. Townies have nothing

to

tell. There's pro-town behaviour... but everyone plays (or tries to play) pro-town as much as possible.

However, the only thing accomplished by saying that "oh, what you think is wrong and what I think is right" when arguing about an opinion is an instinctive rift based off of difference of opinions. I didn't feel like being a cause of a greater rift between Luck and myself when he may very well see something that I missed, or I might catch something that he failed to see - which, if we're needlessly at each other's throats, could be dismissed since it's coming from an "absolutely wrong" opinion/perspective.

It was quite clearly a matter of interpretation, not fact. The vast majority of day 1 is. That you felt the need to draw attention to it indicates that you lack confidence in your own position.

I always try to post, even if I have nothing significant to say, to maintain a presence in the game.
It appears to me that LL and GC are still attacking each other for relatively small reasons. Punctuation, who said what and what they meant by it, etc. It isn't those reasons in themselves, just that they don't have much backing. I suspect big fights from small reasons.
Sorry Seol. Wrong name.

So... you read my post, but you still have no opinions whatsoever? You have to work hard to be that noncommittal!

Seol, that's a really good analysis of what happened if I were to look at it from the outside.

Another example of "go ahead, find me suspicious"! Good stuff.

Amazing what one can do with "3 pages of spam" [disclaimer: this is what I meant as "spam" - 3 pages of pointing fingers around at small things to reveal intentions and such].

OK, I think you'll find most people wouldn't categorise that as "spam", but there you go.

Honestly, I throw up the word honestly at the beginning of the sentence way too often, and I think I only do it as townie upon quick reflection. Obviously, you're not going to believe me here but I'll be eliminating that townie tell about myself in future games. Thanks.

Obviously I'm not going to believe you? Not if you tell me not to.

My default game is one of complete disclaimature. I get all the information I have out on the board, unless I think I can use it to my advantage later on by tripping somebody up. I was telling the truth - I didn't think anybody else was more guilty than that statement. And in saying that, I was fishing for responses. Somebody has to fire the first gunshot, I chose to do so, it's my style. I usually start off with a controversial claim such as "I think this guy is townie" (with Echo) or "I think this guy is mafia" (with Ripley). And it worked, here we are into the land of discussion. Great!

Are you confusing disclaimature (distancing yourself from your own position) with disclosure (stating everything you're thinking)? Disclosure isn't scummy, although it's sometimes inadvisable (eg "Hey guys I think Meme's the doc!"), but disclaimature is a different kettle of fish.

If you're saying the disclaimature was part of the disclosure, then my point stands.

I don't believe third votes on a bandwagon on a game of this size are telling (in fact, I think that too many townies jump on that and get a townie lynched). I certainly don't think that using a random dice generator to generate a random vote is divestment of accoutnibility, it's a random vote. I don't think that saying OMGUS FOS is a tell to each side, I actually sort of think it's townie because it's a glaring neon capital letter OMGUS OMGUS LOOK AT ME I'M TYPING OMGUS AND DRAWING ATTENTION TO MYSELF FOR NO APPARENT REASON. Call that a 1/100th townie tell.

Dodgy didn't use OMGUS, that was my characterisation of the FOS. Typing OMGUS actually counteracts the OMGUS status of a vote/FOS because, as you so elegantly put it, it draws attention to it. My point was stuff had happened, accusations had been made, and you weren't commenting on it. If you didn't think it had merit, you could have said so.

Anyways, my game has been extremely straightforward thus far; attacking the 1/1000th scum tell with a FOS. I don't bother switching my vote for people on a 1/1000th scum tell.

That's fair, though.

Oh, and good post Seol. You're moderately townie in my books.

Considering that this all started with the post where you suggested Ripley was buddying up to me, it seems like a) your behaviour is much more like buddying-up than Ripley's was (note the implied trusat) and b) you're not in the best position to criticise people suggesting that you're buddying up. Smacks a little of hypocrisy.

You didn't respond to this point. Seems like a good time to remind you of it.

I think that "CONTRARY to what you think actually GC." does not feel like a sentence, and so one instinctively looks to attach it with a comma to what went before or what comes after, and as one is reading forward that's the natural direction to go. Especially with the word following being "I", and therefore still capitalised after a comma, the natural place to mentally substitute the comma for a full stop is there, rather than before CONTRARY. Not saying you'd do this consciously at all, but this could easily lead you to the reading GC gave it.

Mmm, perhaps. It still doesn't seem like a natural or plausible read to me, but I suppose if you think it makes sense to read it that way it's more likely that GC did too.

Is there really no such thing as a townie tell? Are there not power role tells, which by extension would be townie tells?

There are power role tells, but there aren't generic "pro-town" tells.

If there were, scum would be mimicing them to the point they would become scum tells.

That's why a lot of the key cop/doc tells are also scum tells. Scum also use them to hunt power roles.

2) I am always in two minds when a player that hasn't posted much, suddenly gives us all a break down/ run down of the game so far. More often than not, I have found that this type of post is there to sway the town that they are on the towns side, as subconsciously, when you read such a post, you feel it helpful, therefor catorgarising that player as town (Seol).

Have you ever played with me before? Or read one of my games? Get used to the "big post".

And to answer your question

honestly

Seol, yes, if I had spotted it but as it were on me and I obviously noted it, definately yes.

Were you considering answering it dishonestly?

Also, this may or may not seem crazy to you, but I am going to now make a weird statement (believe me, this is well thought out and may or may not be used for a greater purpose). For the rest of day1, (barring something ridiculous, of course), I am going to assume that Green Crayons and Seol are townies.

Why?

I find it funny that we're having the same argument across two games that we're both in. If it bothers you that much, you can take my words to mean "I believe that Green Crayons and Seol are slightly townie."

There's a

world

of difference between "assuming [we're] town" and "believing [we're] slightly townie".

However, trust me that there is method to my madness. I don't have any finished games yet to point at as examples, but you might be surprised at just how objective my methodolgy turns out to be. Watch for future developments!

There may be madness in your method. If you're going to take a position, especially one which looks highly unjustified, and then say you have a justification,

give

that justification. Otherwise, all you're going to succeed in doing is attracting attacks - and whilst this does occasionally seem like a good tactic, trust me, it isn't.

[Seol]

Luckay, I've got a newsflash for you. You're not Pooky.

Are you playing to win, or to dick around?

[Seol]

Are you playing to win?

Yes, I'm playing to win.
And I believe I've nailed you down as a townie. If you are indeed a townie, as I'm 95% sure of now, you should recognize that this is valuable information that can only be good.

Except

there's no information!

Blind trust is

dangerous

, informed trust is fine but I don't see any evidence of that. I don't want you to trust

anyone

without reason, including myself.

And if I hadn't conducted this entire crazy shenanigans, I couldn't be as convinced of you being a townie as I am now. Now, at the very least, you have this benefit: anything you say I will take as being solid pro-townie advice.

OK, let's assume for a moment you do trust me completely. Even still, you don't know I'm

right

.

I'm looking at your posts from a mason point of view, not as a townie-trying-to-identify mafia point of view. Can you see how valuable that is?

And what about GreenCrayons? You were saying you saw him in a similar light. I don't agree, and I don't see why you'd say what you're saying. If you have good reasons, then I would find it very useful if you could tell me, so I can either agree with you or point out possible flaws in your reasoning. After all, that kind of complete trust, when misplaced, is

incredibly

dangerous.

Furthermore, statements like this don't make me feel any better about

you

, particularly the way you're saying you implicitly trust the two people who have attacked you hardest. There's one obvious way I can think of that you could know two people are innocent, or at least not Mafia - and I can't really think of any others. Therefore, I'm thinking one of these is true:

1) You're talking complete crap.
2) You're Mafia.
3) You've seen something of actual merit that hasn't occurred to me, and are not sharing that with the town.

If it's 1), stop it. It's not helpful, and it'll just attract bad attention your way. If it's 3), share it, this is useful information for us,

especially

from someone who just a few posts ago was saying they were in favour of complete disclosure in the early game.

Otherwise, I'm forced to assume 2) is true. Note I'm already voting you, which should give an indication how comfortable I am in the idea of an "open masonry" with you.

[Seol]

My goodness. "1/1000th of a scum tell Ripley-buddy-basher LuckayLuck coldly rebuffed in shock dual-best-friend proposal". How much pathos and irony am I supposed to be able to take on a Monday morning?

When I do it, it's not a scum tell.
When other people do it, it's a scum tell.
This is because I play differently.

1) Why is it not a scum tell for you?
2) How are we supposed to accept that - just because you said so?
3) Why does your "playing differently" involve actions

that you recognise are generally considered scum tells

, which surely you expect to be attacked for?

3) You've seen something of actual merit that hasn't occurred to me, and are not sharing that with the town.

[...]

If it's 3), share it, this is useful information for us, especially from someone who just a few posts ago was saying they were in favour of complete disclosure in the early game.

Complete disclosure...hmm...okay, I guess I lied.

Have you heard of the principle "lynch all liars"?

See, here's the thing: I disclosed that I think that you and Green Crayons are townies and will trust both of you. That is disclosing a lot, it's also somewhat controversial. I cannot disclose why I think this, because people can start jamming my townie radar with "fake tells."

I don't care about your "townie radar", I care about my scumdar. And it's blipping, hard.

Blind trust is dangerous

I know this. Though it may look like blind trust, you have to trust me that it isn't, and that this trust can change. I can't really disclose more than this because my ploy is still in progress, is already netting me useful information, just know that I'm not blindly putting my trust in people.

You've declared that you think the two people who were attacking you hardest are pro-town with inconsistent levels of certainty and providing absolutely no reasoning to explain why. This looks very much like you are trying to get us off your back. Your saying you can't explain why you're doing what you're doing because it would undermine your ploy

also

looks like you're trying to get us off your back.

I will not get off your back until you offer a satisfactory explanation.

Whatever your gambit was, it has backfired - you started by making a scummy statement (and I will consider it scummy until you give me good reason to think otherwise), and you have continued since in a manner which is

entirely consistent

with scum trying their hardest to get out of the argument.

[Seol]

Re: GC's post - much of this is descending into positional posturing. I will respond to the points I feel need addressing, if there is anything anyone wants me to address that is not covered here let me know.

Also, if there's one thing that is constant in all of my games, is that I love arguing. It's a personal flaw, as you can ask any of my friends (well, you can't seeing as how you don't know them, but whatever; it's the principle).

I can tell.

Good, then you'll realize that I don't shy away from arguments. Therefore, when I don't address something, it's because I missed it.

Doesn't follow. I'm also getting the impression you care about winning. Sometimes arguments will be put forward which you realise will hurt your chances of winning to draw attention to, and then there will be conflict between your love of arguing and your desire to win. The convenient omission has proven to be a much stronger tell with those who love arguing and rarely back away from arguments than those who have less of a debating style.

I love arguing,

even if I don't believe the side that I'm on

, just because I like it - it probably stems from a desire to have everyone at least see my point of view. Therefore, I will argue and respond to points

regardless of my alignment

, I can promise you.

That's twice you seem to draw attention to the fact you'd be playing this way as scum in as many sentences.

Since I don't have a plethora of games under my belt (15-20 max with a liberal recollection), and what games I have played have been over an extended period of time, I don't remember much on how other people play as scum. What I do remember, however, is how I have played as scum. Therefore, I base a lot of my suspicions - at least initial ones that form in Day One/Day Two - off of how I have acted as scum.

You weren't talking about your suspicions. You weren't even talking about anyone else - you were talking specifically about how

you

are playing, right

now

.

"Go ahead, find me suspicious" comments always ring alarm bells with me. Not in an "ok, I was wrong, fair enough" but "you're wrong, this is why, but go ahead and find me suspicious if you like". If I'm wrong, then I

shouldn't

be finding you suspicious - saying it's OK to find you suspicious for the behaviour is tacitly acknowledging it

was

suspicious.

Just because you're wrong doesn't mean you'll agree with me. And of course it's suspicious - I did, after all, neglect to respond to another player's direct inquiries, regardless of whatever the cause of that neglect may be. You said so yourself, that failing to respond to an inquiry is suspicious. I gave you my reason, but that's really up to you to decide whether or not you truly want to believe it.

Good answer.

Frankly, I don't care if you think I'm suspicious for not initially responding to IH's inquiry (which is where the comment you quoted stemmed from) because I personally don't think that much suspicion can be gained from it - namely because IH's analysis of my actions is complete crap. You said that it wasn't IH's specific inquiry that I ignored, just simply the fact that I ignored him that caused you to be suspicious.

Not quite - I wasn't suspicious of you as a result of IH's points (because I could see it was flawed), but the conclusion he came to was one that required a response, and I thought it was suspicious you didn't respond.

Sure, suspicion can be derived from simply ignoring a point being made by another player, but I think a lot of that suspicion's weight depends upon what was being brought into question. It would be different if IH really had a zinger of a point and I was trying to sneak my way around it, but he doesn't.

That's my point - he

did

have a zinger of a point. Contradictory behaviour like he accused you of

is

significant, at least for day 1. That it was easily demonstrated to be flawed does not diminish the importance of responding to it. At that point I didn't know how capable you would be at rebutting the accusation.

It wouldn't make sense for me to try to ignore his post simply because of how easy it was to respond to, but that - once again - simply boils down to whether or not you want to believe that I did it on purpose. After telling you my reason, it's truly out of my hands.

This however I am inclined to accept. I don't really believe you'd have any difficulty responding to his accusation, which means your avoiding it is a much less likely explanation than having missed it.

As to why I don't care if you find my actions suspicious is because 1. I don't think much suspicion

can

be gleaned from it,

Really? With some people, it's my single most reliable tell.

and 2. there are plenty of more suspicious people than myself.

I'll make my own mind up about that, thanks - although you're definitely not top of my list at the moment.

There aren't. There are power-role tells, sure, but there's no such thing as a townie tell, because of what a tell

is

. Townies have nothing

to

tell. There's pro-town behaviour... but everyone plays (or tries to play) pro-town as much as possible.

Townie tell, pro-town behavior... I'm pretty sure he meant them to be the same way. If he didn't, that's how I interpreted his vocabulary.

Yes, but the point is that pro-town behaviour is

not an indicator

that that player is town, not if he's halfway competent and especially not on day 1. Or in other words, it's not a reason to trust them.

I just don't want us getting hung up on an irrevelant piece of conversation because I'm yelling how completely wrong someone else is until I'm blue in the face about an opinion. It doesn't help anything, and, in my opinion, can be quite detrimental to the town.

This is why I am not responding to every point in your post.

[Seol]

1) Why is it not a scum tell for you?
2) How are we supposed to accept that - just because you said so?
3) Why does your "playing differently" involve actions

that you recognise are generally considered scum tells

, which surely you expect to be attacked for?

1) It's not a scum tell because I will be using this methodology as both townie and scum.

Not once I'm done with you, you won't be. This is not a useful methodology.

I don't have a history for it here yet, but I will have the base for it soon.
2) These are my first games here, so unfortunately, you have to accept it on blind faith...IH has confirmed that I do play this strategy in another game I am in with him.

Please provide links to games where you used this "strategy" on other forums.

I will not get off your back until you offer a satisfactory explanation.

Whatever your gambit was, it has backfired - you started by making a scummy statement (and I will consider it scummy until you give me good reason to think otherwise), and you have continued since in a manner which is

entirely consistent

with scum trying their hardest to get out of the argument.

Lucky's strategy:
1. Make possibly controversial, but often correct (imo) predictions that may or may not go against the crowd.

Are you saying that the comment was

intended

to be read as inflammatory and unjustified? Did you have any reasons to pick myself and GC? If so, what were they?

2. Strongly believe in these predictions. Call me crazy, but believing strongly in these predictions and then looking at what your target does in response is an extreme tell.

It generates extreme responses, proves an extreme distraction, but generates virtually zero

useful

reactions (everyone attacks you for acting scummy). It's also an example of the troll defence ("I didn't believe what I said, I was just trying to generate reactions") which allows scum a get-out from pretty much any situation, which is why the troll defence should be given very short shrift. Playing "strategies" like this

undermines the whole town

.

Baiting strategies can work - can be very effective, in fact, but not if you're baiting with scummy behaviour. How are we supposed to catch scum other than looking for scummy behaviour? Can you see how acting contrary undermines everyone

else's

search for scum? Why should you be allowed a free pass to act scummy?

I don't have any complete games on this site yet, but all the current games I have will follow this strategy. Even the newbie game. The newbie game is the one currently furthest through but not over yet, is it kosher to link it as "proof"?

It's bad form to refer to ongoing games, as any comments made about them could influence that game.

[Seol]

To cut a long story short, I'm basically done with Luckay for now. The main thing I wanted was the reasons why he expressed support of GC and myself - I've got that now. I'm largely happy with his response - as I suspected, it's naive. IH has detailed many of the holes in your thought process and most of them are regular noob misconceptions. However, to reference another key noob misconception,

being wrong isn't scummy.

Anything else about strategy, I'll discuss in more detail after the game.

What I'm not happy about is how long it took to get it out of you - why were you so reluctant to share this? Just so you know, one of the most useful words for the town is "Why?". Analysing positions is powerful, but not nearly as good as analysing

motivations

. Don't hold back on the why - it looks like you don't know why, or to put it another way, you haven't fabricated a good town-aligned reason for your actions.

unvote

, there's a few other things I want to reference.

[Seol]

A couple of other things that got my attention:

Echo -

As for GC/LL, meh. Seems like they're jumping on each other for small reasons.

It appears to me that LL and GC are still attacking each other for relatively small reasons. Punctuation, who said what and what they meant by it, etc. It isn't those reasons in themselves, just that they don't have much backing. I suspect big fights from small reasons.

Seol and GC, I think appear to me to be a couple townies drawn into a fight. The original argument was a bit flimsy, but now everyone's tearing into each other, over posts that were part of that argument. It just builds on itself, and yet it isn't that productive IMO.

9/10, it's two townies convinced the other is scum, maybe subtley egged on by others, and not neccessarily scum either

Recurring theme slightly? GC called Echo after he did it

once

, which may have been premature, but there's been a hell of a lot of talk without really taking any positions - I don't just mean votes here, but he doesn't try to advance any arguments or ask any questions or

anything

(apart from voting Luckay after it becomes apparent he's basically talking nonsense), just "this talk is about little things" comments.

And yes, the discussion was over minor things - that's a big part of my technique. The scale of the offence is only of marginal importance because I'm not as interested in

what

they did as

why

. The original issue is generally just a seed to get someone arguing and justifying something,

anything

- and it's how they argue that's enlightening. And on day 1, you only get little things to attack anyway.

This, however, I can understand:

I dunno about everyone esle, but I tend to ignore those epic point-by-point battles- the intricacies are insignificant to all but those directly involved, and it's a ton to read. 9/10, it's two townies convinced the other is scum, maybe subtley egged on by others, and not neccessarily scum either- there are people who can read and analyze these kinds of arguments. I know I can't, and it appears others dislike it as well.

This style (PBPB) can be effective, but it's also selfish. This is, after all, a game - it should be fun, and too many posts that are too big can turn the game into a chore. I've stopped playing on certain sites because there are too many posts, so it becomes a pain to keep up, so I can certainly sympathise. Also, I've been away from Mafia for a bit and I was itching to get into a logical rampage almost for the sake of it.

One reason Seol might do this is that lengthy analysis often has the effect of impressing people with the player's protown credentials. It is simply harder to believe that a scum player would take so much time to do an analysis. So by getting one in at a very early stage Seol could plant the seed of his probable goodness in all our minds.

Are you saying I'm too townie?

Seol, in the absence of any search facilities can I ask you to name other games where you've made posts like this at such an early stage?

Two which pop to mind are Newbie 73 and Band Mafia, but neither are perfect comparisons because neither was PBPing out of the blue over the random banter stage. I only recall those because they're my first game and most recent (finished) game here respectively.

[Seol]

Seol, I like to stay consistent...

Consistently scummy?

Looking back, most of my reasons for voting him were based on playstyle... which is aggravating, as it's such an easy excuse. I'll keep my vote there for now. I really don't like the whole mason thing.

Do you think it's scummy (as opposed to poor play)?

I dislike Day 1. The problem is there isn't really much going on, yet we still have to get some discussion going.

That's why we're "jumping on each other for small reasons" - we don't have much to go on, so we're discussing what there is.

Too often scum slipups and town mistakes look similar.

That's why the cross-examinations are necessary, or at the very least useful.

YEAHHHHHHHHHHHHH We're finally masons!!!!

You really want me to hate you, don't you?

Presenting, for the first time ever on mafiascum, the Excel spreadsheet of doom!

Which catalogues nothing more than vibes and vague impressions (at this point). A useful tool, sure, it helps organise the mind, but nothing remotely mindblowing (you want to see mindblowing, check out the Hardboiled Mafia Tool at Misetings).

Of course it's a lot harder to argue with someone who agrees with you...

Define "agree". If they agree with the subject of the argument, there's nothing to argue about. If they agree with you on a different topic, that's irrelevant to the first argument.

Now I have a tough decision- keep attacking LL, even though he has me pegged as protown?

Why does his saying he thinks you're pro-town make you want to stop attacking him? Does it make you think he's more likely to be pro-town?

If LL is town then scum could easily put on their best townie act. I'm not convinced that LL could tell the difference.

Certainly his arguments so far are poor, and don't exactly fill me with confidence in his assessments.

Against LL's crazy antics you can't tell what is scummy and what isn't anymore.

That's what I meant when I said his strategy was undermining the town.

think Seol brought up an interesting point about Echo. It seems like he wants to tie GC and Seol together for some reason. I don't see this connection.

Where do you get that idea from? The bits I quoted referred GC/LL twice, GC/myself once and the general case once. Why/how do you think it looks like he's tying me and GC together?

Echo seems too happy with this really messed up situation.

Exactly - it smacks of opportunism. Furthermore, I really don't like Echo talking about backing off LL because LL has Echo green.

vote: Echo

[Seol]

Once, Echo says Seol and GC look like two townies as shown in the quote above. I interpreted Echo's "9/10 times it's two townies" statement as support of his GC and Seol are townies position, but I can't really prove what his intent was. The important difference is that Echo says "LL and GC are fighting over small things" not that they are townies fighting. When he talks about GC / Seol the wording is "two townies". That slight difference is what I found strange.

OK, I see how he's saying we're both town, I don't see how he "wants to tie [us] together" (apart from thinking we're both town).

In Band Mafia you were much quieter. In fact you didn't post at all. This seems very out of character. Maybe you were operating under an assumed name?

I knew I forgot something - I was playing as Rainbow Brite in that game.

Because attacking him undermines my own integrity. Attacking someone who thinks well of you means I have one less supporter.

And what has that got to do with integrity? Are you conceding that it did

not

lead you to believe he was less likely to be scum, and agreeing that you were considering backing off because you were more concerned about how other people view you than finding scum?

Are you voting me because I'm scummy, or because you think I'm good lynch?

What's the difference?

I'm voting you because I find you suspicious, because your stated motives don't seem to be town-aligned to me. I'm not ready to lynch anyone yet.

Are you attacking me because I stopped going after LL, your quarry, or because of the reasons for it?

Firstly, I'm attacking you about backing off LL because of your reasons. Secondly, that's a hell of a loaded question embedded there - "Are you attacking me because I stopped going after LL, your quarry?". Why do you describe LL as "my quarry"?

What is your opinion on Day 1 lynches? Go for most informative or most scummy? Do you see a difference? How much?

I'm wary of any justification for a lynch that isn't about scumminess, and not just on day 1 - this is often used by scum to justify lynching someone when they can't do it any other way. This is particularly true on Day 1 when any "connections" are invariably very tenuous. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "go[ing] for the most informative [lynch]" here, though, could you clarify please?

IH - each person's position is depended on number and strength of villager and mafia tells.

This is about as useful as saying "each person's position is dependent on how scummy they seem". You haven't actually told us anything.

[Seol]

I don't like attacking people who think I'm town because if they are town, then they might very well be less likely to support me later. It could be a critical schism.

This is what concerns me - you do seem excessively preoccupied with how other people view you, as opposed to forming views on other people. Also, what if they are scum?

I describe LL as your quarry because before me, he was the person you were engaged in a semi-battle with.

That would mean he

was

(past tense, ie previous to your comment) my quarry - at the time of your comment, wouldn't

you

be my quarry, not LL? There was an implication, from my reading, to your question of "are you attacking me because I am opposing your position" - which I would say was misrepresentation (as you weren't opposing my position, I had stopped attacking LL before you did), albeit misrepresenatation by my interpretation of what you said. It would be interesting to see if others agree with my reading.

[Seol]

I think concern for self-preservation is one of the scummiest things out there. Scum have to survive to endgame to win, so they tend to be more concerned about their image. Townies should be willing to risk their lives to expose the scum.

I wouldn't go so far as to say self-preservation is scummy in and of itself - townies want to stay alive too - although

excessive

concern for self-preservation

is

scummy. But we're not talking just about self-preservation here. We're talking about Echo not wanting to vote LL on principle

because LL was supporting him

.

More concerningly, I'm also getting the impression that Echo thinks that's how he

should

be playing - reading his comments:

Now I have a tough decision- keep attacking LL, even though he has me pegged as protown? Or back off and be seen as a person easily mollified?

Because attacking him undermines my own integrity. Attacking someone who thinks well of you means I have one less supporter.

I don't like attacking people who think I'm town because if they are town, then they might very well be less likely to support me later. It could be a critical schism.

Looking at the language of these, I'm getting the impression that Echo is not only conscious of the dilemma involved in backing off someone who's supporting you, but is trying to justify his behaviour as the correct, pro-town thing to do (which is clearly not the case).

[Seol]

LL: Please stop with the townie tells. I know you think you know what you're talking about, but trust me, the thought processes you've described thus far are naive. They may be effective with noobs, or in an inexperienced playerbase, but they're not as strong as you believe.

It may be I'm incorrect, and you have a superb scumdar but aren't quite describing it properly, but you haven't established any real credibilty yet so for the time being please take this on board: continuing to talk about "townie tells" and "95% townie" is having one main effect: people are not taking you seriously. This does not benefit you, nor does it benefit the town.

Echo:

More concerningly, I'm also getting the impression that Echo thinks that's how he should be playing:

Isn't it?

No, it isn't. Conflict avoidance with the intent of self-preservation is scummy, and that's a pattern that you've established quite well. I can understand why you might believe it would be a sensible townie strategy - the longer more townies survive, the better for the town, but it doesn't work out like that. I

can

believe you were acting in this way, consciously and deliberately, believing it was correct.

So, for now,

unvote: Echo

.

[Seol]

Ripley- Why are you not in the votecount? Are you voting/ suspicious of anyone currently- if so, who and why?

1. Not my responsibility.
2a. No.
2b. No.
3a. Not applicable.
3b. Not applicable.

This, oh, how shall I put it...

just screams "Not interested".

But for now, I feel like going

vote: IH

.

[Seol]

Ripley- Why are you not in the votecount? Are you voting/ suspicious of anyone currently- if so, who and why?

1. Not my responsibility.
2a. No.
2b. No.
3a. Not applicable.
3b. Not applicable.

This, oh, how shall I put it...

just screams "Not interested".

A poor attempt at a cut-and-paste stitch-up by Seol. The minute or less it takes to pull up all posts by Rathyr and then by me and to contrast the two sets is ample to show the difference between a player who is interested and one who isn't.

I'm gonna stand by my assessment. I'm not going to dispute that you're interested

in the game

- you're talking a lot, probing people and putting forward well-reasoned arguments. However, it all looks kind of mechanical - and when you're asked who you find suspicious, not only do you not have

any

suspicions, you're pretty dismissive about the concept of having suspicions. That says to me you're not interested

in finding scum

, only in keeping your head above water.

But for now, I feel like going

vote: IH

.

You know people are going to ask why, so why not save time and tell us?

I didn't tell you because a) I was hoping people might attribute reasons to me and b) I didn't have much time.

Sorry to disappoint you both but I cannot manufacture suspicion where none exists. This isn't a situation that I'm enjoying particularly. It's more fun to have a suspect.

I'm astonished by this. I mean, even if you have no reason to suspect anyone, if you trust one person more than the rest, each of the remaining players is suspicious as a result. This is day 1 - we don't expect solid reasons - but hell, you described my post as "a poor attempt at a cut-and-paste stitch-up" - obviously, I disagree with your assessment, but did you not find

that

suspicious? If mischaracterising attacks aren't enough, what

do

you require before you're prepared to take a position? Are you even trying?

I said some time ago that the game had divided early into two groups, those who were involved and those who weren't. The people who aren't involved in a game are the ones who would normally get my attention, but in this game we have the unusual situation that nearly all of them have left it.

"The people who aren't involved in a game are the ones who would normally get my attention". That says absolutely nothing about

this

game, it just bemoans the fact you can't use a predetermined, mechanical approach to represent your suspicion.

So, the lurkers have left, the prolific posters (Seol, GC, LL, IH) come across as innocent almost from the sheer volume of words and the effort it would take to produce them.

BULLSHIT. Scum are just as capable of producing volume as town. If you want to talk about the words used, fair enough, but this is a complete cop-out.

Wolfsbane: I just don't have an opinion. Echo: I'm not convinced by the arguments against him, and the outcome of a lynch in another game of a player accused of one of the main charges aganst Echo (I hope it's OK to refer to ongoing games in such general terms as this) has inclined me more to give him the benefit of the doubt.

And on the two people you can't say are either lurkers being replaced or producing enough volume to come across as town, you have, rather conveniently, no opinion beyond not buying other people's arguments.

apologies for the misunderstanding to anyone who may have thought I was angry with them.

Is there something wrong with getting angry? I certainly get emotional over my games.

Maybe that's enough of focusing solely on me now?

I'll just let that comment stand alone for now.

I thought the complaints that have been made were that I was not throwing anything out there.

The complaint is that you're not taking, or trying to advance, a position. You're not, as far as I can tell, trying to work anything out. And as you said:

I would think it's harder for scum to manufacture a lengthy analysis of the game (tough to pretend interest in a puzzle to which you already know the answer)

Does that clarify what I meant by the "not interested" comment?

IH post coming soon.

[Seol]

I don’t find Ripley suspicious at the minute, though I can’t for the life of me say why.

This strikes me as an odd comment. Do you think you

should

find Ripley suspicious?

[Seol]

Sorry for the double-post, but:

Looking forward to your dissection of IH, Seol,

since it means I won’t have to do one.

No, it doesn't. I'll always explain my position (not always immediately, though) but so should you.

PPE:

Not really. I just felt that a post like that required some sort of response.

It sounded to me like you were trying, and failing, to rationalise why you didn't find him suspicious, which you thought was a controversial point of view. Would you agree with that assessment?

[Seol]

A post attacking someone needs responses from people so we know who agree and disagrees. M4yhem's comment probably meant that he had read through the ripley-bashing post and disagreed (correct me if I'm wrong though).

It wasn't his disagreeing with me that I found objectionable - it was the comment that he

didn't know why

, as if a) he was taking a position which needed excusing and b) he couldn't do it. I'm not sure if it's significant or not, but that's what I was responding to.

That bit where Ripley is accused of not actively trying to find scum is yet another bit of WIFOM.

Huh? I'm accusing him of not demonstrating a characteristic (forming and pursuing suspicions) that townies demonstrate, but scum have to fake and thus find it difficult to demonstrate. How is that WIFOM?

Scum could be lurking in disguise (

I'm assuming this is what S says,

), or scum could be throwing suspicion on non-scum (like what S could be doing.)

Yes (except for the bolded), or throwing suspicion on each other, if they're ballsy. But I'm not talking about how scum behave - scum can fake their behaviour, and any discussion thereof is prone to WIFOM rationalisations. I'm talking about how town behaves, and how Ripley is showing an absence of that town mindset.

Where did you get the bolded impression from?

[Seol]

OK, the IH post.

IH has been on my radar ever since this post:

Granted, now I'm curious as to why you think Echo's post made him a bit more on the town side for you. His comment "Seems like they're jumping on each other for small reasons." seems like he's reaching for something to post simply so he can post something, which is what I've done a few times while scum. Granted, it's not much and is a pretty weak suspicion point (more or less just giving me a nudge to scruitinize his posts a bit more), but it's there nonetheless. I'm curious as to why he was moved in the opposite direction in your opinion.

It's page 1 on a day 2 start. You also just seemed to contradict yourself. He's reaching for something to post, and posts a small suspicion. You say you do that as scum. You then say that's not much, and is still a weak suspicion.

Perhaps he's just trying to get the game started a little more. It is only the second page.

I think that's good enough this early in the game for an

unvote, Vote:Green Crayons

Unless I misunderstood you.

I'd addressed this at the time - GC was attacking Echo for having to reach to find something to post just so he can have something on the record, not for posting weak suspicions - that's a jump IH made, and it's a mischaracterisation. Note, however, that IH ends with "Unless I misunderstood you".

It's not helped by a response from GC which misses the (admittedly subtle) major flaw in the reasoning, but I'd pointed out the flaw - a point which IH totally disregards, which kind of undermines IH's implication that he's open to the possibility he'd misunderstood GC's point and was looking for an avenue of attack.

I'm tempted to quote large parts of the exchange between GC and IH, because at this point GC is spot-on in his accusations of IH:

Additionally, I didn't fail to notice the fact that, in seeing that your breakdown of my contradiction being based off of a flat out wrong assertion (that I said that he was accusing someone), you ignored the false statements on your behalf that I pointed out and quietly shifted the "contradiction" to a different basis. Now, instead of him having accused someone on a weak suspicion and myself accusing him on a weak suspicion (which is what you originally said it was), you're saying that he put forth a pointless post and that I did the same (see above as to where this argument doesn't hold weight).

IH's response to the above was simply:

Also, responding to the rest of that post, you admitted that it was a weak suspicion.

...Which not only doesn't acknowledge the main point, but also refers back to the original mischaracterisation of GC's position, simultaneously misrepresenting

and

omitting in the response.

Now, IMO, it seems like you're trying to turn a page 2 post with no substance into a something majorly suspicious. That is something I will accuse you of.

unvote, vote:Green Crayons

Bearing in mind that what GC is doing at the moment is addressing craplogic attacks from IH, and only referring to the page 2 post in question as much as is required to do so, this follows an emerging behaviour of attacking GC based on a mischaracterisation, and when the attack is rebutted, changing the nature of the mischaracterisation and continuing the attack.

Note also the redundant unvote, revote - which is pure rhetoric (IH was already voting GC at that point). It's interesting because it's not the only time IH does it, which suggests it's a conscious technique rather than an oversight.

The persistent attack on GC (which I'm omitting parts of, largely because GC was addressing it very well at this point - go back and re-read GC's comments) then ends abruptly for this:

unvote, Vote Echo419

It looks like you were trying to capitalize on something not exactly wrong, as I see more of what he's saying in his last post (that I actually responded to and had time to think it over)

There's no acknowledgement of why IH has removed his vote from GC - he doesn't concede misunderstanding, justify his position in a way that isn't rebutted, or anything like that - he just gives up on the argument. Losing an argument isn't scummy in itself, but the argument showed that IH was using misrepresentation and diversion on a regular basis - a point which IH basically avoided dealing with any further here.

That's the majority of my reasons for voting IH - the snaking craplogic attack on GC.

Based on those quotes from Seoul (Which I seemed to have missed for some reason) I'm

unvoting, voting:Echo

Firstly, this is the second redundant unvote-revote, and secondly it's yet another example of him getting my name wrong

again

(that frustration only accounts for 22% of my vote, though). More importantly, the post he's referring to (post 168) was making a very specific point, and was one I deliberately omitted my conclusion from.

The quotes are sandwiched with this thought process:

I'm also getting the impression that Echo thinks that's how he

should

be playing -

Looking at the language of these, I'm getting the impression that Echo is not only conscious of the dilemma involved in backing off someone who's supporting you, but is trying to justify his behaviour as the correct, pro-town thing to do.

I thought this framing pointed out that it was looking likely that Echo was trying to do the pro-town thing, but just didn't realise it wasn't strategically sound. It struck me as not only opportunistic, but also mischaracterising, that IH would cite my post as justification for "piling on" the Echo wagon (in quotes because he was already on, meaning all the vote would achieve was add to perceived wagon momentum).

That's what got my attention back onto IH after being involved in the LL and Echo situations - especially as my objection to it was similar to my objection to the whole GC argument.

[Seol]

Just to say I've been without net access for the last week and a half, I now have it back, and I'm catching up. Expect a post of some sort tomorrow.

[Seol]

Liking lynching you is actually a damn good reason for voting you, CES.

vote: CES

<__<

unvote, revote: IH

.

Any actual opinions on the game? That's what I wanted from Ripley.

Getting back to the matter at hand, IH. His response to my long post was basically:

Alright guys, I'm going to be honest. I've been really distracted by this game, and just haven't got back into it. When I saw those quotes from Seoul, it was things that I hadn't noticed at the time, and thought it was suspicious.

This sort of addresses my second complaint - the vote switch to Echo - but not "the majority of my reasons for voting IH - the snaking craplogic attack on GC". He later responds when pressed with:

All I can answer about GC is that I misunderstood him. I thought he was saying something entirely differrent, which was why I was going after him so hard. I eventually dropped it, in favor of something else I saw.

He explained quite a few times what you got wrong. You didn't acknowledge the misunderstanding or address his points, instead you kept shifting what you were accusing him of. I don't buy this explanation.

Post 240 is labelled a PBP but is largely spam. I'm terrible for long posts, I know, but much of 240 was really a waste of time. Signal/noise is important and I got the feeling it was intended as a distraction (two lines to defend himself, then a hundred on spamming?). IH's vote on LL feels about two weeks out of date too, much has been said about Luckay since then which is relevant and unmentioned.

Happy with my vote on IH.

[Seol]

Bandwagon, you say? I suppose I can always get Seol killed at a later point.

Unvote, vote: IH

In my sleep? O_O

[Seol]

Do you doubt my ability to convince the scum to kill you?

Not if you

are

scum.

If you aren't, well, nobody really takes you seriously any more.

[Seol]

Did you breadcrumb?

Not that it matters.

unvote

.

[Seol]

Of course I wagon, that's simply the nature of the beast(and not a tell).

Whilst in this case I agree that wagonning is not a tell, I don't like it when people tell me that what they're doing isn't evidence that they're scum.

vote CES

for grandstanding about how he wants to get Seol lynched. Needless.

But oh so much fun!

Yeah I've heard this all before and it makes sense, but I just think that the benefit (having a confirmed innocent) outweighs the cost (a slight increase in the chance of scum killing a power role). Since scum, in general, have a large information edge over the town, this evens the playing field. They're going to cause problems for the mafia either way (either they waste a kill or they let confirmed innocents crowd the field of lynch-candidates), MUCH moreso than if they get lynched and then we all find out, "oh, he was a mason... uh, ok"

Obviously a mason should claim over getting lynched - IH was definitely right to claim here.. You were almost sounding like a mason should try to put themselves in a position to claim early though, which is a bad idea for pretty much anyone.

[Seol]

Because I'm tired, it's late, I have work tomorrow - I don't feel like reading up on Wolfsbane and assessing him now. I'll probably do it tomorrow.

[Seol]

Yay! A bandwagon!

Seol, why don't you hop on and lend some credibility to the bandwagon?

I'll go with it for the time being, I'm intrigued to see where this goes.

vote: wolfsbane

[Seol]

So anyway, I am Cinderella. I have a sort of lame power role. I can call my fairy godmother once during the game and become immune to nightkills while I'm at the ball that night.

I dislike the claim.

Firstly, commuters are fairly random, but a

one-shot

commuter is

really

random and weak. The role doesn't sound particularly credible.

Secondly, on the presumption that you're immune because people can't find you, why nightkill protection only and not untargetable?

Thirdly, claiming nightkill immunity (even limited nightkill immunity) is an SK tell.

[Seol]

Seol, I must point out that similar roles have been done before.

Commuters have, sure, but they're rare. One-shot commuter I haven't seen. I'm not saying it's impossible, merely rare and excessively hosed.

[Seol]

Ow.