Mini 742 Monopoly Mafia - Game Over!

[Spolium]

Even if we didn't nameclaim (which I do not support)

the scum might have an easier time guessing who has a powerrole based on how they react to this suggestion.

The emboldened text suggests that you do not support the town not nameclaiming (and therefore support the town nameclaiming), but that seems contrary to your point as a whole.

Can you clarify?

[Spolium]

The emboldened text suggests that you do not support the town not nameclaiming (and therefore support the town nameclaiming), but that seems contrary to your point as a whole.

Can you clarify?

I do not support nameclaiming. This is really silly. It makes no sense for me to support nameclaiming and speculate that charter was rolefishing by suggesting it.

Call it silly all you want. All I have to go on are the words you say, the actions you take, and where/when they contradict one another.

I do accept your explanation though.

He provided a reason with his vote, I wanted to know if he meant that as a serious vote since he had previously posted but had not voted. Since he had already provided content you cannot assume it's a joke. And I'm looking for reasons to suspect people, not "excuses". Had he said yes that would have been a good reason to suspect him. It's called scumhunting.

K, let's work backwards a bit here. What do you mean by "serious vote?"

I get the impression that you're dancing around a valid answer here - the meaning of Charter's comment is quite clear.

[Spolium]

K, let's work backwards a bit here. What do you mean by "serious vote?"

One with a serious reason for it... (I felt that was clear from before, but whatever)

@Megatheory - Now that you have an answer to this, could you explain what else charter could have meant by "serious vote"?

Everyone knows the more infamous properties on the Monopoly board, and I believe that special roles would go with the 'special properties.' (speculating here)

This makes sense. Also, there are enough properties to allow for scum to fakeclaim without too much risk of conflicting with an existing player.

[Spolium]

Oh, goddamn it.

mod - can you sort out my quote tags above? The nested quote should be Megatheory, the main quote charter.

Got it. —SC

[Spolium]

What the hell?

FoMFS Pacman and Jebus, assuming charter flips town.

[Spolium]

Actually I think you're right. Seven to lynch, now at L-2 (unofficial count).

[Spolium]

MOD: prod on megatheory please

[Spolium]

To elaborate on my comment in #124:

either lynch me for a

complete bullshit

reason or drop it.

hmm... bullshit? so why did you defend it alot?

You have already won the jackpot. congratulations.
Unvote, Vote: charter. Appeal to emotion scum. nuf said.

If he didn't address the case on him in some way, people would be calling him out for avoiding arguments.

The emboldened text appears to be condemning charter based on his response to this

damned if you do, damned if you don't

situation. Seems insidious.

either lynch me for a complete bullshit reason or drop it.

Sounds like a challenge to me.

unvote, Vote: Charter

Seems highly opportunistic, given the circumstances. While it isn't clear now whether Jebus intended to hammer, his subsequent recount implies that at the very least he placed his vote carelessly.

[Spolium]

Sorry about the lack of activity. I'm having real trouble getting a handle on this game, mostly because of the mess that was the case on charter.

I still really dislike MegaTheory's "what do you mean by

serious vote

" question to charter. At the time it looked like he was trying to obsfucate things and draw attention to charter (which seems all the more relevant given charter's flip), however his lack of presence/response makes it difficult to comment further.

I'm going to re-read and see what stands out.

[Spolium]

Welcome, new guy.

Don Hertzfeldt =

awesome.

[Spolium]

Maybe I haven't had enough experience here, but I fail to see how not answering a yes/no question is more scummy than a bandwagon without cause.

Because the bandwagon was a random vote bandwagon. You were asked a simple yes/no question, sidestepped it a few times and didn't actually get around to answering it until someone voted you.

I understand it's only 3 of 7, but we don't even know how many scum are in this setup. If we bandwagon someone to L-[# of scum], it's a good chance they'll be lynched fairly quickly.

Except not, because then we'd have some pretty damned obvious scum (although the most likely scenario would be that at least 2-3 voters unvoting before anything could happen).

[Spolium]

I don't see how three people voting the same person is "random."

Okay, call it

jokevoting

, if that makes more sense.

It amounts to the same thing in practical terms - the description "random" applies to the lack of actual case for the votes and does not imply that all random stage votes will be truely random.

Especially when 1) NONE of them even hinted it was, and 2) This was done within a few posts.

What? Empking's reason was "

I dont like Bs

" (which he later clarified to mean he doesn't like the letter 'B'), and Jebus' response to your comment on the two-man bandwagon was "Because vote: Braeden". The former is blatantly not serious and the latter infers a lack of seriousness in presenting the vote itself as the reason for the vote.

Then, of course, we know charter's vote was not made with ill intent.

You were asked a simple yes/no question, sidestepped it a few times and didn't actually get around to answering it until someone voted you.

No. I answered it when my question was answered.

Okay, you're right - I take that back.

However, I still don't like how you refused to answer the question until yours was answered, since this suggests that your answer could have been dependent upon the answer given by one of the bandwagoners.

Except not, because then we'd have some pretty damned obvious scum (although the most likely scenario would be that at least 2-3 voters unvoting before anything could happen).

Let's say there's 3 of them. We vote a couple votes on someone, one of the scum attaches on. We vote another vote, another scum attaches. Then a townie hammers. I hardly see how you can sniff out the scum in that setup.

Even if this was the case, as the bandwagon approached L-1 any townies would have unvoted because their non-serious bandwagon was unjustifiable.

Yeah, like a townie would quickhammer on a 100% unsupported case.

It's entirely unfeasible to say that (a) townies would keep their votes, or (b) scum would risk drawing attention by pushing it as far as L-1 (bear in mind that both (a) and (b) would need to occur for scum to get it to L-1).

[Spolium]

vote Gamma

AGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR

YOUR LYNCH AGAINST CHARTER WAS UNCALLED FOR WE COULD HAVE GOTTEN INFORMATION.

I WILL LYNCH YOU BECAUSE HINDSIGHT DSFAFSDFSS

I see the point Gamma's trying to make, but pre-emptively belittling prospective accusations against him in this aggressive manner really rubs me up the wrong way.

[Spolium]

Think you can cite one or two games in which this happened?

I've never seen a jokevote bandwagon turn into a proper bandwagon, nevermind a lynch.

[Spolium]

Strong FoS: Gamma until I realize why the heck did he selfvote.

Superficially it appears to be pre-emptive satire of what he expected to be a slew of accusations following his hammer. This hasn't happened though, so either he got what he wanted or he jumped the gun.

Either way, I can see where he's coming from in this respect. What concerns me is his lack of activity since that point, and the possibility of underlying reasons for the move.

[Spolium]

Two anti-towns don't make a right.

[Spolium]

<For the record I think we should remember though that we aren't certain yet that they were just joke votes>

For the record, I think we can be fairly sure that they were all jokevotes - see my observations in #225.

but three lefts do.

I guess Stalin, Chairman Mao and Casto all ended up on the right, for all intents and purposes.

Were you actually making a point here? If so, it escapes me.

[Spolium]

Oh hi Nightfall, how's the citation hunt coming along?

[Spolium]

You said

I've been in numerous games where innocent
townies have been lynched on not so serious band wagons.

so I would like you to cite the thread(s) which address this claim, if you please.

[Spolium]

Frankly, I think there's more to it. Contrast what Nightfall said here:

I've been in numerous games where innocent townies have been lynched on not so serious band wagons.

With what he said immediately after I requested a citation:

When I get a chance I'll look over some past games and see if I can find something.

I'm sure it must have happened in mafia history though.

What started as a confident claim based on direct experience rapidly retreated into the realms of "

well, I'm sure it happened at

some point in Mafia

". More recently, he has bounced back to a comfortable mid-way point:

There's a (likely) chance it wouldn't have happened here, but it

could have

and that's why I didn't like the "joke" bandwagoning.

So basically I can't ask any more of him without expecting him to sift though every game he's ever played, but whether or not he experienced it personally it

could have

happened AND THAT IS THE POINT.

No, I don't like that one bit; nor do I like the fact that he was subtly taking pot shots at charter without committing to a vote throughout D1.

vote: Nightfall

[Spolium]

Like I said, I can't reasonably expect you to search every game you've ever played, but my point is that there was a noticable shift in the weight you were putting on your agreement following a simple enquiry.

IMO this is suspicious because you were implying that ywaeatagag was right to be concerned about a random phase bandwagon, which naturally directs suspicion towards those that were on the bandwagon (apart from charter, obviously).

As for the pot shots at charter comment, having re-read your interactions I don't see it so much (maybe I was thinking of someone else? I'll have to re-read at some point). You still get my vote for the above though.

[Spolium]

Start with post #9 and work your way on from there...

[Spolium]

I think players should be concerned about bandwagons in any phase let alone the random phase. In our case the early "Joke wagon" appeared to be the product of some metagaming between Charter and the others involved. If so that would have been a negative for the town as the players would have been letting outside factors affect this game.
And even in your time here, I'm sure that you must have seen a few
players that are a little too loose with their voting, no? I haven't played with many people in this game before/recently, but I do know that I have played with some people who have simply joined wagons because it was the "thing to do", and I've been in games where people meaning to add to a wagon actually place a hammer (This just happened a few days ago in another on going game of mine). I didn't want to see any bandwagons form without some actual merit behind them.

But that doesn't really address the main reason behind my vote, does it?

As I said before, my concern lies in the awkward shift from "

I've been in numerous games where random bandwagons led to lynches

" to "

well, it must've happened at SOME point in Mafia history

" to "

it's probably happened at some point, possibly not on this site

".

Since that you've shifted again, to "

I've been playing here for 4 years, I can't remember

the one or two games

in which event X happened

". Am I to take this as acknowledgement of a insignificantly low statistical probability of a random bandwagon spiraling out of control? You have, after all, been here for 4 years - presumably you've played many games on and off this site?

In 279 you seem to have dropped the idea of basing it on experience altogether, rationalising that because some players are "loose with their voting" or prone to joining wagons with gay abandon (or because people can mistakenly place hammers) we should be wary. I won't deny that these points are reasonable, but they're somewhat removed from your original arguments in 227 and 228, namely:

the votes together formed a very real band wagon that could easily have become our first "major wagon" for no other reason than a larger than normal number of jokevotes were placed on a player.

I've been in numerous games where innocent townies have been lynched on not so serious band wagons. [..] I'm not
sure how experienced all of our players are here, but it is possible that in a l-1 situation a townie might place a hammer without "much" of a case simply because everyone else was voting for him/her

This just seems off to me.

And just for the record, it was Yawetag that first commented on the dislike of "random bandwagons", and "mass-voting".
Your post (276) made it sound like I was leading him on, when really I was agreeing with him.

In what sense did I make it sound like you were leading him on?

[Spolium]

Sorry if I don't hit on everything your asking. There's a lot and I'm trying to get it all

That's cool, I do have a tendency to hurt brains with wallposts. I will try to be more concise.

My comment of "When I get a chance I'll look over some past games and see if I can find something. I'm sure it must have happened in mafia history though. " came after you asked for me to provide an example and I think that you have been reading too much into it. At the time I knew it could take a while to go through past games to find an example so I made that comment to essentially say that yes I will look for an example for you, but even if it takes me a while to find you one, don’t write off what I am saying because I’m sure it must have happened at some point.

This seems reasonable, though I'm not convinced that I'm reading too much into it. To go from "event (x) has happened in numerous games in which I've played" to "I'll see if I can find something, but it must've happened at some point in mafia history" seems like a significant shift to me.

And I'm pretty sure that I never said...

"

it's probably happened at some point, possibly not on this site

".

I was paraphrasing. In your own words:

31 - "

There's a (likely) chance it

wouldn't have happened here

, but it

could have

However, I think I misunderstood what you meant by "here" (I took it to mean this site, as opposed to this game).

I will agree with your point that there is a low statistical probability of a random bandwagon spiraling out of control. My point was that it can/does happen once in a while and that is why I made the comments that I did.
Three of the first six votes in this game were for the same player, with no real reason given.

Numerous votes on the first page with no reason provided? MY GOD

I believe that I took the apropriate response to that happening and asked if there was somesort of metagaming going on with those involved. If you go back and read the thread, you'll see that more members then myself were concerned. Yaw and Pac both questioned the actions of the wagoners and voted for them too.

I have no problem with people being concerned, but yawetag was responding to a vote on him by emphasising that the 3-man bandwagon was scummier than his refusal to answer a simple question, and used sketchy reasoning to justify labelling that bandwagon as non-random.

As for your comments on my post 279 I don't see how I've "dropped" any ideas. My point has always been that bandwagons can lead to quick votes, and quick lynches which is why we shouldn't let a "joke" one get too big. Please keep in mind a fair few players thought a hammer was made on page 5 in day one in this game... I think that alone shows how loosely people were keeping track of where votes were placed.

What I meant was that you dropped the experience-based justification (necessarily, since you couldn't cite evidence) and shifted to a more justifiable position. You do make a good point about players losing track of where the hammer fell, but it's also worth noting that they erred in an entirely different way (i.e. thinking the hammer dropped before it did, rather than mistakenly placing a hammer).

In what sense did I make it sound like you were leading him on?

Is that not one way the following could be taken?

IMO this is suspicious because you were implying that ywaeatagag was right to be concerned about a random phase bandwagon, which naturally directs suspicion towards those that were on the bandwagon (apart from charter, obviously).

To me it looked like you were saying that I was adding fuel to Yaw's fires of suspicion. And again, when 3 of the first 6 votes in a game (4 of 7 if you accidently count EMP's double post) are for the same person, I think there certainly is a reason to be worried or atleast question those on the wagon, which is what Yaw, myself, and others did.[/quote]

Please take note of the two statements prior to the one which you interperet above:

Spolium

Like I said, I can't reasonably expect you to search every game you've ever played, but my point is that there was a noticable shift in the weight you were putting

on your agreement

following a simple enquiry.

IMO this is suspicious because

you were implying that ywaeatagag was right to be concerned

about a random phase bandwagon, which naturally directs suspicion towards those that were on the bandwagon (apart from charter, obviously).

Parts emboldened for emphasis.

I hope that covers everything. And while I'm sure you will have something to say back to me, which I in turn will be happy to answer could I request that we also hear some more from our other players?

My, aren't we friendly?

[Spolium]

Damn, messed up some quotes. To clarify:

In what sense did I make it sound like you were leading him on?

Is that not one way the following could be taken?

IMO this is suspicious because you were implying that ywaeatagag was right to be concerned about a random phase bandwagon, which naturally directs suspicion towards those that were on the bandwagon (apart from charter, obviously).

To me it looked like you were saying that I was adding fuel to Yaw's fires of suspicion. And again, when 3 of the first 6 votes in a game (4 of 7 if you accidently count EMP's double post) are for the same person, I think there certainly is a reason to be worried or atleast question those on the wagon, which is what Yaw, myself, and others did.

[Spolium]

Mod, I placed my vote on Nightfall a page or two back

pacman281292 vs pacman281292: those guys are obvscum. nuf said.

[Spolium]

spolium what could nightfall gain from saying what he said?

Well, he was supporting yawtaeg's stance that the bandwagon in the random phase was "not so random", so the implication of this is that those who were part of said bandwagon are suspicious. Were he scum and

not

on the wagon, the benefits of this stance would be obvious.

[Spolium]

Declaring suspicion of a bandwagon in the random phase is as impotent as declaring suspicion of a single vote in the random phase. What difference does it make whether a bunch of non-serious votes with no explicit justification are placed on various people, or a single person?

Hey, maybe now it's suspicious if one person switches their vote several times in the random phase, or when two people vote for each other in the random phase.

Sorry, I don't buy this. It's a pretty lame argument and I'm suspicious of those making it, for aforementioned reasons.

[Spolium]

Whose to say they weren't / aren't serious?

I've already explained why they were indistinguishable from other jokevotes.

Being unsure about it at the time is one thing, but continuing to push them as suspicious is... well, suspicious.

Yeah... because that's the same thing...

In terms of the kind of picture you're trying to paint of them, yes.

Well good for you. We've established now that we disagree...

I was just making my opinion on the matter clear to all, as opposed to addressing you directly.

Why are we debating this again and letting people get away with lurking?

CHANGE SUBJECT GUYS LURKER HUUUNNNNT

[Spolium]

Isn't my vote still on Nightfall?

Just to make sure -

vote: Nightfall

[Spolium]

Jebus, why are you voting Alabaska? Why do you trust replacements?

Zilla, why do you think that a full summary of all players is a good idea? Who would be your second choice for scum?

Grimmy, what are your thoughts on Nightfall?

[Spolium]

How so?

[Spolium]

I find Nightfall to be pro-town and trying to end a distracting conversation.

Interesting. As far as I can see you've mentioned Nightfall only once, and that was when I was

questioning him

wasting my time debating a silly point.

You say that you "find [him] to be pro-town

and

trying to end a distracting converstion". What are your reasons for finding him pro-town?

Also,

Honestly, if nobody had suspicions because of a random wagon, most games would never get out of the random vote stage.

Do a majority of games really rely on suspicion of random wagons to get out of the RVS? There are many ways to break out of the RVS, and I find that topic significant in that is the only game where I've seen RVS suspicion extend into D2.

Much as I loathe the idea of getting into another silly debate, can you substantiate your assertion?

[Spolium]

and he just gives off a very pro-town feeling to me

Oh? Please, elaborate.

Several of the games I've played in (all of them ongoing, unfortunately) got out of the RVS, in one way or another, due to suspicions cast towards random bandwagons.

How unfortunate. I guess we can't touch that one with a barge pole, eh?

FoS: ac1983fan

[Spolium]

He's been more than willing to answer your questions regarding his statement, until it got to a point where you were dragging it out and were just distracting the town.

That seems fair. Anything else?

I don't even know what you're saying.... I can't link to any games because its against the site policy. I can't give specifics, because I don't want to break the rules. Several, if not a majority, of all the games I'm currently in have gotten out of the RVS because of a reaction to an RVS wagon.

I understand that you can't discuss specifics, and I don't expect you to. It's just that you initially said "if nobody had suspicions because of a random wagon,

most games

would never get out of the random vote stage".

Now you've backtracked to "Several of the games I've played in (all of them ongoing, unfortunately) got out of the RVS, in one way or another, due to suspicions cast towards random bandwagons."; so you've gone back on "the majority", threw in the disclaimer "in one way or another" and conveniently we can't chase them up since they're all ongoing games. You've been on this site for two years - does this limited cross-section of ongoing games constitute a majority of games that you've played?

Seriously, I find it really odd that both you and Nightfall have done something along these lines in order to justify suspicion of an RVS wagon. Yeah, maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree, but I can't help but detect dishonesty there, whether or not I can posit a specific reason for it beyond the obvious.

I'm not lying, I have no reason to lie.

But of courshe you don't.

[Spolium]

Spolium In the games that you've been in (lets say on this site for simplicity reasons) how do you usually get out of the random voting stage?

Any number of ways. One I've seen a lot of recently is people taking a stance against the RVS itself, which seems to pull conversation right out. Purposefully dropped scumtells/bold statements/declarations of policy vote on a given player all seem to be effective too.

IME though, it is usually the case that someone will mistakenly say something that is perceived as suspicious, and conversation branches off from there. In fact, other than in this game, I don't think I've ever seen an RVS wagon highlighted as suspicious, which is probably why the as-yet-unsupported claim stands out to me.

There's no link to ac1983fan being scum for saying that suspicion on the bandwagon gets us out of RVS.

Not directly, no, but then I never said that was the case.

[Spolium]

I don't think you see what I'm getting at Zilla, but I'll settle for continuing to find those unsupported declarations suspicious for now.

now that drama is over i'll be able to post

That's the worst reason not to post that I've ever seen.

FoS: alabaska

[Spolium]

In the interests of ensuring that we actually get a lynch,

unvote; vote: Alabaska J

[Spolium]

BAH.

Go town! Fuck you, scum!

Watch it with the profanity. —SC

[Spolium]

I'm pleased to see my D2 suspicion of Nightfall was not misplaced.

I was pretty gutted when charter got lynched, as I had a bad feeling about the case on him but didn't get around to posting more about it on time.

I actually submitted my action to protect pacman N1/D2, not sure what happened to that. Regardless, it was good to see I didn't fudge it up and protect scum.

Good job town!

Thanks, mods!