Mafia v. Wolves Redux: Finally Over!

[mneme]

Heyo. I actually read the thread (through page 34) last week, though it's faded a bit, two things stand out most: the scuminess of dgb and raffles (that's two things).

I don't see any reason not to

vote: Raflfes

Though...36 pages for two days of posts, and this little content?

[mneme]

Hmm. Shana's vote hopping/lack of content is kind of disturbing (something I found an issue in her recent posts even before I realized she'd tried to vote me).

Sorry for the lack of (more) substantial content -- it's a big game with some very frequent posters -- which makes it very hard to get a strong read on anyone. And the fact that we know there are at least two scum groups makes it even harder -- there are a -lot- of scum in this game, and not a lot of hard info.

[mneme]

Oh, as I mentioned in my first post, I've read the whole thread -- did so when Phoebus said he might need me to replace. It's just that with certain subthreads taking up lots and lots of space, it's hard to get a hard read on anyone aside from raffles (obvious scum), BM (mixed -- but not having played with him, some of this may be playstyle), DGB (seems tres scummy), and a bare few more.

[mneme]

DGB: I didn't mention MoS because your attack on him was a complete crock. I didn't mention PBUG because I -still- don't know what's up with his bandwagon. I only mentioned the people who are actually acting suspicous. Including you.

[mneme]

And, er, shamba? If you're going to ding me because scarecrow was a lousy player (as seen by, you know, him needing to be replaced), well...pot. Kettle. Black.

Watch the bandwagon on me, people -- it's a really good clue as to who Raffles' buddies are.

[mneme]

And DGB? It took me four days to read through this bloody thread. Four. Don't you people have something else to do? Calling me a liar after all this work doesn't merit an FOS (or changing my vote) -- it just pisses me off.

[mneme]

Exactly the kind of "defense" I expect from scum. It's a classic.

*yawn*.

It's not a defense. You're trying a classic redirection, have been for days, and the bandwagon on me is an interesting example of same.

I don't need to defend myself against you, DGB. Except, of course, at night.

[mneme]

Oh, actually a few things -- (remembered, since my read through was over a week before I actually joined the game--yeah, I should have taken notes): The red is almost certainly a scum sign. I'm curious about what ESE could mean.

It feels fairly similar to the "Empire of Rome" thing in Phoebus's Asterix game (though there, brackets gave the romans away). Whether it's a cult or a killing group? Don't know, don't care.

[mneme]

Ok, Raffles. Do you have a role claim or something else of relevance?

And Shamba? Scarecrow wasn't horribly scummy -- he was just lousy. He showed up, didn't contribute pretty much anything, and left. Lousy. He didn't -do- anything of relevance; he wasn't even present enough to be a lurker.

[mneme]

Goofball: BM was really scummy on day 1. He's been very helpful and played well today. Therefore, my assumption is "not scummy". But since he was pretty scummy on day 1, he got a ding.

FWIW, I suspect one reason this game reads wierdly is that it's got (with, based on on the title and the deaths, at least three scum groups) a huge purportion of scum. I'm not -- but I wouldn't be all that suprised if many of the people I find seriously scummy are. I'd guess this game started about half scum -- give or take -- just looking at the numbers.

[mneme]

Ok, Raffles. Do you have a role claim or something else of relevance?

I thought you read the game, haha. Not noticing roleclaims or lack thereof, are we?

Wow. How just smart and cogent of you. I -must- have meant "have you claimed", not "are you about to claim?" You is teh funny.

You're right -- I shouldn't be voting for Raffles.

unvote
vote DGB (obvious scum

[mneme]

Raffles: the game's called "mafia vs werewolves". That points to two. " ESE Member" doesn't seem to link to either mafia nor werewolves, but as framed is another scum group. Thus at least three. Is this 100% sure? Of course not; Phoeb could be messing with our heads. But it's the best I got.

On top of that, the vibe I'm getting from this game seems to indicate many scum, not few. Might be off, but probably not.

[mneme]

You are contradicting yourself.

You are playing horribly. And no, I'm not.

At least means "minimum of".

Yes. I think there are a minimum of three scum groups -- ESE (whatever they are) werewolves, and mafia.

"At least" doesn't mean "I know" anything. It's a quantifier, not an emphasizer.

This kind of garbage, Raffles, is why I was voting you and why I will again.

Mafia isn't a game of semantics -- it's a game of deduction, comittment, and colletive behavior.

[mneme]

You are still not making sense. You can't mix "at least", and "I think" together.

Yes, you can. I did, in fact. It's -obvious- that this game has at least three scum groups, just by reading the thread. That it's not obvious to you is actually rather odd. "obvious" might be wrong -- but that's another matter.

Please answer BM's question.

[mneme]

Raffles: the problem is, the -primary- driver of your bandwagon (at least in my eyes) isn't anything you've done -- it's DBG's opposition to it.

There are very few things you can say about yourself in thread that are inherently scummy (yes, there are some things). But flat out "noooo! Anybody but Y!" defense is very scummy -- it indicates one of:

1. Defender is being unreasonable.
2. Defender is a scum-buddy.
3. Defender is trying to make a link where none exists (ie, scum prepping cop claim or the like).
4. D is Cop.
5. D and Y are Masons.

We pretty much need a lynch or claim to get an idea of which it is -- so that's where focus/speculation is. It is, of course, possible that one of the possiblities that inidicates you are town is shown -- that too is interesting.

[mneme]

fyi-its my opinion that as scum, it is good to put suspicion on your buddies, but not to actually vote for them.

FWIW, I don't think this is correct, but in the interests of not telling the scum how to play, I'd prefer to not spend too much time on it.

[mneme]

Agreeing with people is the only thing Scarecrow did all game.

O'Rilly?

The thing is, Flay, that

everyone

should want to stay off of the lurker list; scum or not.

Frankly, after you die, you shouldn't post

anything

, but people like to post things like "Damn, go town."

None of that's "only agreeing with people". Sure, he didn't post much, and sure, he eventually went idle and needed to be replaced (seems active enougn in his two current games, though.

But this isn't the only game he was just agreeing people with around that time, nor was that (barely) all he did.

[mneme]

@Mneme
So from this, what you are suggesting is there is no strong case to suggest that DGB is my scum buddy.

No, I'm suggesting a very strong probability of both of you being scum. You're assuming an equal probability, which just isn't there. The level to which you're coming to her defense (and vice versa) would seem to indicate that you're either masons or scum together -- if you're masons, you're out far enough that you should claim and avoid wasting the town's time/investigations. The fact that you haven't yet points to scum, however.

You're seriously WIFMing here. Sureptitiously linking is usally scummy. DGB has tried and been caught at sureptitiously linking. Therefore, DGB probably scum.

[mneme]

It's never scummy to try to avoid being lynched (unless you do -specifically- scummy things to so avoid it).

[mneme]

Too much of this game has resolved around Raffle's lack of English skills/comprehension. Raffles, are you a native English speaker?

[mneme]

But, the whole case on Raffles appears to stem from his estimation of scum in game and the unlikelihood of a Cult.

I think it's a matter of "though dost protest too much" and the various early struggling he did when he got targeted -- no one thing.

I'm not convinced there's a cult either -- it seems like every game, the spectre of a cult comes up, and it's only actually there very occasionally. But it's one explaination for last night's results, and it's certainly possible.

To me this looks like scum latching on to a townie. If Raffles gets lynched and comes up town, DGB can use this as a shield later.

That's certainly one of the possiblities I'm voting DGB on.

It's just that with certain subthreads taking up lots and lots of space, it's hard to get a hard read on anyone aside from raffles (obvious scum), BM (mixed -- but not having played with him, some of this may be playstyle), DGB (seems tres scummy), and a bare few more.

I agree with suspicions of DGB and BM. Could you explain the obvious tells from Raffles that I am missing? Also, in post 954 you remove your vote from Raffles("obvious scum") and place it on DGB(the "tres scummy", which I guess means average scummy). I don't disagree with your vote. But, why did you switch from a "sure thing"? In post 955 you talk about 3 scum groups. If Alex was cult and tried to recruit scum last night, what is your opinion for the lack of nightkills?

Re Raffles: He's tried to defend DGB. He's very -strident- that there's no cult (and seemed to be positioning ESE as a pro-town group, thus is possibly ESE). He jumped the OTU bandwagon for more or less no reason (ie, a possible jumpoff to avoid being on a townie's bandwagon, though that's not amazingly likely). DGB's defended him.

Despite this, I'm not 100% convinced he's scum -- by "obvious scum" I meant "obviously scummy."

"tres scummy" means "very scummy" -- tres is "very" in French. Over time, I've liked DGB as scum much more than Raffles, so I switched. I may switch back. but Raffles recent protestations seem genuine, so I like DGB somewhat more.

Re "3 scum groups" -- I don't see any reason to speculate that far, though the night post seems fairly clear:

1. Alex wasn't killed by someone he targeted -- he was targeted and killed. The person who killed him wasn't someone he was meeting, but someone who met him.
2. Alex was part of some group, and presumably scummy. It was a fairly complicated night post, so it's possible he wasn't -- but that points to there being at least three scum (still not ruling out a SK, frex) groups. Alex's scum group might be a cult; or it might be a killing group that missed its kill because of a role-blocker, a doctor, targetting a nightkill-immune player, or a double-target (I think that last is unlikely, because the night post was detailed enough that I think a double-target would have been mentioned).
3. Alex was moving at night (this usually means could target, though I suppose it could mean "could talk at night").

Now, if Raffles' group is scummy, and it's neither Wolf nor Mafia, it seems likely that there are three groups. If there are three groups, but only one kill, then either one of these could be true:

Two kills got blocked (see above for blocking options).
One kill got blocked, the other group was a cult.

Two kills getting blocked isn't impossible, but isn't amazingly likely either, thus the cult ideas. They're not bad ideas, either -- but we'll have more info tomorrow to make conjectures on.

[mneme]

3. Alex was moving at night (this usually means could target, though I suppose it could mean "could talk at night").

Now, if Raffles' group is scummy, and it's neither Wolf nor Mafia, it seems likely that there are three groups.

This might be a bit freudian, but I meant "Alex's group" (ie, ESE), not "Raffles' Group" (ie, ?; could be ESE).

[mneme]

A deadline forces the time of the game, making people play, well, faster. Since this game can sometime logjam, I like deadlines on a personal and metagame level.

I don't, personally, think deadline retractions are a good idea -- as they amount to a mod interfering in a game. That said, I was fine with the deadline staying or going, which was why I didn't bother commenting on it -- I'm happy to play to a deadline if we can come to consensus.

FWIW, I don't believe that DGB isn't sure of Raffles alignment. She's defended Raffles and vice versa, in a fashion I cannot but distrust. GB, do you have an alternative explaination for this linkage?

[mneme]

I agree. Raffles, lighten up. Or at least try to be a bit more sportsmanlike.

I'm not totally convinced by the reaction, but agree that there are better lynches at this point than Raffles (though I can't agree with myself, of course). Though it may be that the absense of raffles style of discussion would help the town.

I'm not unhappy with the deadline removal -- but it would be nice if the votility of this game were a -wee- bit higher.

Raffles, I find somewhat annoying your insistence on a sekrit "if the scum do this given a deadline, they'll win" strategy. 1. you already articulated this idea in 887, so it's not really that secret. 2. Given an active, non-majority scum town, it's just not a good idea -- letting the town control the lynch just makes it easier to lynch scum. 3. While yes, allowing for deadline lynches and in general, pushing the timing of games gives scum an advantage, it also makes the game much more fun for both town and scum, allowing it to move, and allowing the conclusions people come to during the day to be tested. I don't really want to go another (yeah, I know, straw man, but still) 30 days before we read the end of day 2.

[mneme]

SV, after you read, please share your impressions of Flay with the rest of us.

What's your purpose in leading a player this way?

[mneme]

PBuG: does that mean you think Raffles is more likely to be scum than DGB, or do you mean that while they are of equal or unbalanced-the-other-way scuminess, that you think DGB is unlikely to get lynched today?

DGB: You've disclaimed certain knowledge of Raffles' alignment. That's useful info, but begs the question of whether your support of him is based on day results (ie, a hunch or induction) or night results (that decreased the probability for you that he's scum without providing certainty -- I can think of several things that would do this). I don't want details in the latter case, but I'd like to know which is the case.

[mneme]

Ackbar: different power roles involve -huge- differences in correct scum play. DGB's play indicates one of: player going (IMO) out on a too-high limb, scum, or an appopriate power role. Without a disclaimer, scum are likely to assume the latter -- but any -public- claim of the latter requires substiantiation on a later day.

By contrast, correct town play is very different for "a power role" and "anything else", given the text.

Now, obviously, DGB's under no obligation to answer me (hell, her bandwagon's what? 2 right now?) But I'm putting the question there -- because my current assumption and behavior is based on "not a power role", (partially because I don't entirely buy DGB's behavior based on my first guess of what her role would be, which I'm not about to say for obvious reasons), yet I'm certainly willing to be redirected from that for today.

[mneme]

Raffles: Given DGB's linking with you, either she's scum or she's a power role or she's playing like either. Given the first two, she's a good target for scum (opposing scum like targetting other scum, for the most part).

If we do, in fact, have a cult, open townies aren't safe either -- they're primary cult bait.

This was why my question avoided asking for either a "do you have X power role" or "do you have a power role at all", instead asking "was X decision made for reason of night actions or just public stuff?". By asking in this fashion, I'm attempting to avoid getitng answers to the questions I don't want answers to, ie. "what is your exact role" and "are you a townie?" while potentially getting a useful answer, and certainly more info re alignment.

And Raffles, she's not a power role that investigated you last night. She already disclaimed knowing your alignment -- so unless she's fudging (ie, "I might be naive or random"), or lying (unlikely, and we know what that leads to), that's ruled out. Please, read more carefully.

I'll be happy to answer your question if and when we get a DGB answer.

[mneme]

You are a slick one. How can I avoid answering your question without moving closer to being cult bait, or affirming my townieness? I'd have to answer something like "I might be scum or town...

Say what?

The whole purpose of questioning is to determine who's scum (and lynch them). So yes, I want you affirming your townieness (if by that you mean "not scum", not "not scum or a power role"), or confirming your scumminess.

And it's easy to avoid answering my question. "I'm not answering your question, since it doesn't help the town." Anyways, you did answer my question, so I owe Raffles an answer:

Raffles, -any- power role that can find out information (even by inference, like a role blocker) is at least somewhat verifiable. As such, they are low priorities (regardless of which one they are) for lynching, so until later in the game, you basically don't lynch them. Scum, however, have different priorities -- if there's a single "out" role and they don't know which one it is, they've got big double-think issues -- because if it's not the doc, it's probably protected, whereas if it is, they want it dead. (multiple out roles make this slightly easier for scum). So scum want to know not just "does someone have a role" but "which one", but all the town needs at this point is "does someone ahve a role that falls into this set of charactaristics to explain this behavior".

Basically, the question is whether the efforts DGB has put into derailing your wagon match what she's said, or whether they feel excessive enough (or otherwise off) to be scummy.

DGB, I don't find what I've seen of your style suspicious, but this one point is, to me.

[mneme]

DB isn't wrong here -- MoS has been supportive of Flay all game (see posts 864 and 865), and it's entirely reasonable to suggest that someone is tactically lurking in a game when they haven't posted for 12 days and are very active on the rest of the site.

That said, cut-dead lurking seems out of character here. Not necessarily un-suspicious, especially given the MoS link, mind.

[mneme]

SV, I'd actually rather, if you can find the time, you read the thread and came to your own conclusions on this. Otherwise, you risk us reprising the entire game -- and more importantly, having your decisions shaped only by the loudest players. But you know this.

SV's claim is at least somewhat bourne out by the record, I think. See Kingmaker II (5/15) andOpen 17.

That said, she's insanely active, so it's pretty hard to draw any conclusions from anything.

[mneme]

Reyox: presumably, he'd gain the ability to claim ESE/Mason later. Setting up a claim like that is fairly classic.

I don't think we have an explanation for why Flay hasn't responded. Certainly, Phoebus complaining about people top-posting isn't it, that's just complaining about top-posting. That said, I'm uncomfortable with lynching (pressuring, sure, but...) a player who's only suspicious thing so far is not posting. If Flay lives through tomorrow, I'd be very interested in questioning him then -- but a posting restriction seems all too likely at this point. (So is lurking, or faking a posting restriction. But Flay's silence has grown beyond lurking to actually drawing attention -- again, what does that serve?)

Reyox, I've gone at length into why wagon-breaking is scummy. It makes links, at this point (any, really) links and groups are more likely to be scum-links than town-links. Openly linking is less scummy, because it opens you up to risk (for scum, saying "IS is innocent" is a big risk since it ties your alignment to IS's and vice versa), but linking without claiming alignment is certainly scum-indicative. Mind, some of DGB's other play (ie, shifting, querying, staying in the public light today) is town-indicative. (but not the quasi-claim, as you point out. I asked for a negative claim (or its opposite), but I didn't ask for the extra info nor want it -- but it's very interesting.).

The MoS/Flay thing is interesting -- like I said, linking is (default) scummy.

Shamba's targeting of me isn't scummy -- it's not a correct conclusion, but Albert and Scarecrow were pretty useless. Mind, we've had worse than useless.

Shamba, if you think DGB is scum, and that scum is using her as a counter-wagon (er, from who? Me? Raffles? Flay?), why not vote her? Wouldn't that give useful info?

Shamba, my first post was a bandwagon jump onto someone scummy-looking (one I gave reasons for later, after I'd reread and could articulate my reasons). Wouldn't it have been more scummy if I'd waited a few days before posting, or posted something useless and tried to blend in? I'd rather bandwagon, truly. And yes, I think bandwagoning is (absent other info) pro-town, just as avoiding jumping onto bandwagons and being stingy with your vote is anti-town. OTOH, I like lots of bandwagons and analysis often being about the bandwagoning more than about what people say (not that that isn't also useful) or don't say -- votes are riskier for scum than speech; this, OTOH, is a very talky game.

I think it's obvious that there's a third scum group because we've got a dead apparent-scum who is neither Mafia nor Werewolves, and Daddy and Mommy and Baby makes three. That said, while I think killing,killing,recruiting (ie, two "mafias" and a cult) is the most likely scum configuration, I don't think we have enough info to draw any conclusions -- one night simply has too much variance. And, of course, there could be a SK in there too; yeah, that would mean a missed or skipped kill, but again, drawing too many conclusions from a single night is risky.

Shamba, if I am scum, any thoughts on who I could be scum with? (Assuming you're not assuming SK).
I can think of a few people who would be on my list were I analyzing things from across the table (mostly people I haven't interacted with much), but not that many.


Were I to have three votes (and had to use them), I'd probably be voting PBuG, Raffles, and DGB.

[mneme]

My problem with a Flay lynch is that absent a post restriction or a fake of same, I don't see any good explanation for his silence -- he's been prodded, he's active across the site, and he can't fake idling or vacation at this point. I prefer to hear from people before they get lynched, but If he -is- faking a post restriction, he's -still- not going to talk today even if we put him at lynch-1 -- that would just make him -more- likely to get lynched. So while I'm very, very interested in lynching Flay tomorrow (or at least putting him under heavy questioning), I think it's a bad idea today. The fact that when there are post restrictions, they're usually on investigative roles makes this doubly important. Admitedly, with 13 posts today and 31 posts yesterday, it's kind of a long shot, but Phoebus does occasionally put wierd, one-character post restrictions into his game (and "you may not say you have a post restriction is kind of a good rule" if one uses them). For all I know, there may be a day-silencer (now -that- would be a nasty scum role).

I think your being personally sure that Raffles wasn't scum to the point of trying to find/build other, better bandwagons links you to him. Perhaps you can find a link in my thinking the Flay bandwagon spurious -- but in my mind, there's a huge difference here.

Re Shamba: Er. I was directly responding to his questions. Thus I named him. If someone else posted stuff about me that needed defense, I'd probably name them too. Shamba hasn't, however, done anything I've found all that scummy -- his attack on me was pretty well put together and pro-town. (So was yours.)

[mneme]

mneme. There is no excuse - he is absent on purpose.

*yawn*. Yes, that's one of the likely possibilities. But even in that case, I want to hear from him. Since if he -is- absent on purpose, he's not going to come back today, I therefore want to hear from him -tomorrow-.

Unless, of course, you know of games where Flay has pulled the "go away, don't come back for a while day" trick before -- that level of metagame being entirely relevant here.

The fact that I have to repeat this is one of the reasons my vote is where it (still) is.

[mneme]

How do you KNOW he won't come back today?

I don't. But if he's scum, it seems likely to be his tactic. And if he's town, it seems likely at this point that he's not able to do so.

And if he WON'T come back today, if he CHOOSES not to come back today, why do we need to hear his sorry excuse tomorrow?

Because he might have something useful to say. Like, you know, cop results? So when we lynch him and find he's town, we've got something useful out of it. (and if he's scum, the extra day doesn't do us much harm).

Given a better option, getting to talk to someone before you lynch them is always better for the town than the alternative.

[mneme]

Given a better option,

(ie, time).