Mini 788 - Fantasy Mafia [OVER]

[Sudo_Nym]

vote ortolan

, obligatory third bandwagon voter counter-bandwagon.

[Sudo_Nym]

Vote Andycyca

I've seen you around and never played a game with you. And there's a bandwagon.

And now I'm split. Do I stick with the counter-bandwagon, or try to start a new one on the guy who didn't read far enough to know we've moved on?

[Sudo_Nym]

So, a bandwagon already?

Unvote, Vote GoatRevolt

ortolan made a very stupid OMGUS, null read. Goat is more experienced and is looking for a wagon to sting someone up quickly.

Was this a serious post? I'm going to assume it was.

Putting the first vote on Sudo is apparently me wagoning in hopes of a quicklynch? Do explain yourself.

Also, do experienced players tend to push for day 1 quick lynches? I've never seen that happen before.

Finally, did you think my vote on Sudo was serious?

I hadn't assumed that your vote was at all serious, which makes me curious about the Andylicious One's thought process here as well.

[Sudo_Nym]

Empking isn't a bad player and I can already vouch for his towniness 100%

Starbuck- no, there is no reason for him to be particularly likely to be scum, beyond my own whim.

To quote the philosophers, pffft.

[Sudo_Nym]

Empking isn't a bad player and I can already vouch for his towniness 100%

Ok, I know this is intentional. You are after Sudo for no reason and you call Empking "100%" town. The only time I've seen you defend Emp like this was in Past Ages where you were scum.

Why are you being intentionally scummy?

QFT.

Vote Ortolan

some more.

[Sudo_Nym]

Sudo_Nym's reaction is a predictable OMGUS but his reaction in 54 is nonsensical. Someone being "deliberately scummy" (although I actually disagree with this characterisation itself) is very rarely a good reason to lynch them. FoS: Sudo_Nym

I was already voting you, I think. No matter. My vote on you has more to do with my belief that your actions made you a good opening bandwagon than any "deliberate scummyness" you have. It usually takes more than the random stage to determine if someone is really being scummy or what.

[Sudo_Nym]

define "good opening bandwagon"

The opposite of a bad opening bandwagon.

[Sudo_Nym]

Uunvote

Vote: Goat

Looks like bandwagon jumping for a bad reasons.

Predictable. Feel free to refute my reasoning if you believe it to be bad.

Being hypocritical is a character trait, not a scum tell.

It's a character trait, alright...a character trait of people who have the alignment: Scum.

I'll admit, hypocrisy is not the biggest tell in the book, but it can certainly be reflective of scum. Townies act in a way they deem to benefit the town. So they have little reason to accuse others of being scum for acting in that same manner (a manner they consider pro-town). On the other hand, scum are acting to benefit their nefarious ends, and will sometimes demonstrate hypocrisy in attacking something that they themselves are guilty of, for a variety of reasons (as a reason to join a wagon, because they weren't at their "towniest" at some point).

I'm curious, though. Why do you say it's a character trait? Do some people just have the "hypocrisy gene" and others don't?

While wonderful in the sense of theory, I'm not sure it really works out that clean. Townies try to act in a manner that benefits the town, but there's not really a consensus on what consitutes a townie action, so what seems like a good townie move to the player making it could easily look scummy to another. So how do you judge hypocrisy on a person's actions, if the motives are potential extremely different for a non-obvious reason?

[Sudo_Nym]

While wonderful in the sense of theory, I'm not sure it really works out that clean.

Nah, it doesn't always work out clean. I've seen townies be hypocritical before, most often in the case of a lurker attacking someone else for lurking. I've been in that position before, and sometimes you just have to suck up the hypocrisy and push the envelop anyway, if you legitimately feel the other player is scum.

Townies try to act in a manner that benefits the town, but there's not really a consensus on what consitutes a townie action, so what seems like a good townie move to the player making it could easily look scummy to another.

Right, but that's not hypocrisy. That's two different people with differing viewpoints. Hypocrisy would be more like me being aggressive early on, and then later attacking someone else for aggressive behavior, suggesting that it's scummy to be aggressive.

So how do you judge hypocrisy on a person's actions, if the motives are potential extremely different for a non-obvious reason?

Hypocrisy is if someone attacks someone else for an action that they themselves are also guilty of. In this case, I think Andy is being hypocritical for attacking Ortolan over continuing the "silly discussion phase" when Andy took part in the "silliness" himself.

I know what hypocrisy is. My point, and perhaps I didn't make it so well, was that different situations can look different. A player can look hypocritical for attacking silliness while himself being silly, even though the two contexts are different. There's frequently more than one aggressive player in a game, but they don't draw the same level of heat for that aggressiveness, purely because one of them is doing it differently (possibly better) than the other.

[Sudo_Nym]

Claiming to start discussion works as a defense, I think, early on day one. Something has to get the ball rolling, and more often than not, its a bandwagon. I would assume that you know this; which worries me, because you seem to be dwelling on it more that would appear healthy.

[Sudo_Nym]

True. I'm not voting you for any super justified reason; you were largely a target of opportunity to get the game rolling.

My point is not to stop you from discussing, I only wonder why you're so obsessed about an opening bandwagon, which is why I've kept my vote on you.

While we're on the subject, I only intended to point out that your idea about "starting discussion" isn't especially relevant at the specific time you brought it up; your other point remain valid, and that one point would be valid, if it were deeper into the game.

As for talking about game theory, that's just how I play. I love to bring it up, because different people respond different- and the same person will respond differently depending on their role. Admittedly, its more of a long term strategy than a short term scumhunt, but its how I've always done it, in RL and online, and I don't imagine that's going to change.

[Sudo_Nym]

SN: Do you have any games to support your meta claim?

Practically any game I'm in. The only one I can find right off is ongoing, though.

[Sudo_Nym]

True. I'm not voting you for any super justified reason; you were largely a target of opportunity to get the game rolling.

My point is not to stop you from discussing, I only wonder why you're so obsessed about an opening bandwagon, which is why I've kept my vote on you.

"I'm voting you for no reason and as you've questioned that I'm going to continue voting you".

Not quite, old chum. I voted you for no great reason, true, but it was your suspicious reaction that got me to keep my vote on you. I fully believe you've overreacted to a total of what? 3 votes? And then you try and twist what I've said to the most negative of its connotations.

As for talking about game theory, that's just how I play. I love to bring it up, because different people respond different- and the same person will respond differently depending on their role. Admittedly, its more of a long term strategy than a short term scumhunt, but its how I've always done it, in RL and online, and I don't imagine that's going to change.

While I agree with you that discussion of theory can be helpful, your two posts 72 and 89 are so abstract and really quite unrelated to either anything relevant which has occurred this game or scumhunting in general. It's not your theory discussion I take issue with, it's the irrelevant and seemingly "filler" quality of it.[/quote]

That's fair. But that's the way I've done it, and its hard to break habits.

[Sudo_Nym]

Not quite, old chum. I voted you for no great reason, true, but it was your suspicious reaction that got me to keep my vote on you. I fully believe you've overreacted to a total of what? 3 votes? And then you try and twist what I've said to the most negative of its connotations.

Suspicious reaction? Please point me to this. Overreaction? It wasn't a reaction at all, it's me attacking you for failing to move beyond a vote you on one hand claim is "random" but then also pretend it's justified as a non random vote because of my "suspicious reaction" (still waiting for clarification) to being voted in the first place. Which is it- do you suspect me, or not? If you do, please give reasons. If you do not, then make a case against someone- we're 6 pages in and a lot has happened- if you can't find anything suspicious you're not trying hard enough. As it is your equivocation about the status of your vote on me is giving you an excuse for not actively participating in the game (as is your discussion of topics irrelevant to either this or seemingly any other game).

Is it so hard? Or are you making it hard? I personally believe you've overreacted to a few votes far beyond what a legitimately innocent person would. Sure, my initial vote was random. But it has ceased to be such, and yet you keep harping on that that is somehow significant. I can unvote and revote you, if that'll help you. Plus, you've now gone to great lengths to misinterpret my posts to make me look bad on more than one occassion.

[Sudo_Nym]

Hi ZazieR. Welcome to the guantlet!

[Sudo_Nym]

Alright, Zazier is making things interesting, no doubt.

I don't like the pile-on on Star. I think her "slip" was really quite innocent; I don't think she was advocating that we all claim, but rather that we should try and garner information. Given that the town starts in a massive information hole, I don't think that's a bad idea; it's just that the execution must be done carefully.

[Sudo_Nym]

Alright, Zazier is making things interesting, no doubt.

I don't like the pile-on on Star. I think her "slip" was really quite innocent; I don't think she was advocating that we all claim, but rather that we should try and garner information. Given that the town starts in a massive information hole, I don't think that's a bad idea; it's just that the execution must be done carefully.

Sudo, thank you for being more eloquent than I am. That's exactly what I was trying to say but I just couldn't get it to come out right.

No problem; I'd rather see a person get lynched for a good reason than because of a misunderstanding. That said, you now owe me. Sooner or later, I'm going to come and ask for a favor...

[Sudo_Nym]

I don't like the pile-on on Star. I think her "slip" was really quite innocent; I don't think she was advocating that we all claim, but rather that we should try and garner information. Given that the town starts in a massive information hole, I don't think that's a bad idea; it's just that the execution must be done carefully.

If we discuss the roles we could see in the game, it's not only possible, but likely, that someone will drop a hint at there role and scum will pick up on it.

Quite true, I admit. I've seen it happen several times in reading; I don't support actually doing it, just that I don't believe it was so scummy as people have intimated.

No problem; I'd rather see a person get lynched for a good reason than because of a misunderstanding. That said, you now owe me. Sooner or later, I'm going to come and ask for a favor...

There's no misunderstanding. I knew what Star meant, and it's exactly what you just said, and it's still helpful for scum.

Alright, I thought there was a glitch in the system, and I wanted to make sure there were no misunderstandings. If we're on the same page, then that means we only disagree on the level of scuminess. Like I said, I just didn't want to see Starbuck lynched simply because of a misunderstanding; if we're going to lynch her I want us to do it because she's legitamitely scummy.

[Sudo_Nym]

Given that the town starts in a massive information hole, I don't think that's a bad idea; it's just that the execution must be done carefully.

I don't support actually doing it, just that I don't believe it was so scummy as people have intimated.

Seems to contradict. Am I wrong?

Well, no. You're right, in that Starbuck's plan as presented is a bad idea. However, I do think we (as a universal town, in this game and all others), need to do something to solve the information hole we start in. Maybe its just cognitive dissonance, but I'm always surprised when the town wins, despite its numbers, just because the advantage of knowing who is where seems so overwhelming. And no matter how many games I've played here and in RL, it never ceases to amaze me. Maybe its just me.

[Sudo_Nym]

More or less. Her center was right, which makes me believe she was thinking along townie lines. As such, I give her the benefit of the doubt, and believe that her idea was a mistake, not a deliberate scum maneuver.

[Sudo_Nym]

I'm actually kinda offended by ortie. I know my theorizing isn't directly scumhunting, but I find it useful to gauge reactions; Ort's entire theory of my scumminess is entirely based on how useless he finds it to be.

So my question then becomes, why are you so sure that I don't learn anything off my theory opening, yet your "deliberately scummy whatever" is so useful? Is it simply because you do the one and not the other, or what?

[Sudo_Nym]

Playing anti-town is not a scumtell. Using anti-town play as reason to vote somebody is a scumtell though.

No it isn't.

And

I'm not even voting him.

This, at least, is truth.

Also, didn't you play deliberately neutral according to you at the start of this game?

No, unorthodox.

And I could easily jump on you, saying that your "unorthodox" playstyle is anti-town. But apparantly, when you do something unorthodox, its okay, but I have to be punished for it.

My point was about Sudo's playstyle, that he has used it as town. Which means that it's not a complete scumtell. Yet, you think it is. It is indeed possible that he uses this playstyle as scum. But because he has used it as town, it it more a nulltell than a scumtell. Do you agree, or not? And why?

I don't care about his meta, useless divergence is anti-town, especially when he's done little else to contribute meaningfully to the game.

I believe I've contributed significantly; I did explain why I open the way that I do, and I believe that its been effective, as its lead to scumhunting. The fact that you don't like that the scumhunting is on you is your problem, not mine. I believe I have a good reason to suspect you, and I have explained why. So what makes you think I haven't contributed significantly? What would your attitude be if I had decided to press someone else?

And you did use it against him, as you added that meta is useless against someone with a scummie award.

No I'm afraid I didn't. I said it was useless and particularly so because he had a scummie award and is presumably half-decent. I doubt I'd have been bothered metaing him regardless.

While I agree that meta can be misleading, especially against any half-decent player, I don't agree that its useless. But this isn't a scummy point either way, so I'll let it go.

What overreaction? I gave a post in which Sudo has stated that he saw you as suspicious. Where's the overreaction?

You have misunderstood. I am saying "overreacting" is definitely

not

a scum-tell.

I have to disagree. Overreacting is a very important scumtell. It's not a guarantee, but then, nothing is. If overreacting isn't a scumtell, then what's the point of opening with a bandwagon at all? Perhaps we're hoping that somebody will make a freudian slip and out himself? No. We do it to see how they react. If we unilaterally outlaw judgement by certain reactions, then we're crippling ourselves needlessly.

You were accused of acting deliberately scummy. Your defence was a fallacy.
And why are you surprised that you have to argue this with me?

This doesn't even deserve a response.

I believe it does. You may not believe you were acting deliberately scummy, but that doesn't mean that others are wrong when they say you were. And simply deflecting it with "You're wrong because I say so" doesn't earn you any townie points.

Or I think you are scummy, and I might vote you for this later?

That's what I was calling you out on it. I suspect you are biding your time in an attempt to appear less scummy.

"Anyone who votes for me is scum." Very newbish.

[Sudo_Nym]

Overreacting can be a scumtell, but the problem with it is that it's subjective to each individual player. What may be overreacting to you could simply be normal to someone else.

This I'll buy. And its completely reasonable to assume that Ortolan doesn't believe he was overreacting- the problem is, nobody ever believes that they personally are overreacting.

[Sudo_Nym]

I am quite sure Sudo_Nym is scum after his last post.

He is trying to justify inherently anti-town play by saying "nah uh, you did it too".

Again, you misinterprete to your own benefit. My point is that my play isn't anti-town. And given the number of people who have agreed with me over you, I think I'm justified in that belief. I was trying to call attention to the fact that most people agree that your play is more anti-town than mine, yet you act completely oblivious. I'm assuming you're doing this because you can't refute it, so you're just hoping that it'll go away if you ignore it.

[Sudo_Nym]

Sorry for my quietness, but we had a big thunderstorm, and I don't live in a high-priority area apparantly, so I've been losing power and access frequently. Trying to catch up now...

[Sudo_Nym]

Alright, I've read up, and to be honest, there's not really a whole lot to sway my opinion. I still think Bear is scummy.

[Sudo_Nym]

Sudo, what do you think about Starbuck?

Mostly what I still think. I don't find most of her early stuff to be troubling; the claim idea varies in scumminess according to interpretation, apparantly.

I find her suspicion of ZazieR interesting, since she doesn't seem to like ZazieR's explosion onto the scene.

She's not a paragon of townieness, but I don't find her overtly scummy; probably a distant 2 to Ortolan at worst.

[Sudo_Nym]

I frequently make cases without including possible scum buddies. In fact, I attempt to determine who the scum buddies are based on reactions to my cases. I disagree that you should be looking for a team of mafia players on day 1. Catching the first scum gives you information to use in catching subsequent scum.

QFT. Ort looks to me like he's doing anything he can to try and flip things around on me. If he has to dig deep in the well to find fault, he's going to do so.

[Sudo_Nym]

I'm seriously not trying to lurk, but I don't think we're doing anything new. At this point, we've mostly been rehashing arguments we've already had, going around in circles.

[Sudo_Nym]

No secret, mine would be Ort, and probably starbuck.