Mini #582: Meta Mafia Mini! GAME OVER!

[Mr Stoofer]

Stoofer:
So why didn't you say that when you were first asked? Why give an inaccurate approximation of your thought process instead of the simple truth?

I was just describing my thought process in a non-literal way. At the time the question was "why did I vote KingPin?". I was being asked about my thought process not about the procedure I used. What was important at that stage was not the literal process but my thought process. If the question had been "How did you go about selecting KingPin?" then I would have given a more literal, 'procedural' answer. I still think that, in context, my answer was clearly not a literal description of my actual process but of my thinking.

And, if my explanation is wrong, what's your explanation for all your repeated "lynch me now please"s?

Well that was semi-flippant. My point is that I am not one of those people who keeps obsessive notes or conducts rigorous textual analysis of the entire thread. I often miss things when reading through games quickly. If you think that that is scummy, then you may as well save time by lynching me now, because I am absolutely certain that I will miss things again.

[If you want a recent example, see Dynamite Stick Mafia (which I am modding). I have just announced two players' deaths, even though the kill ought not to have gone through and

someone had pointed this out in the thread

.]

[DestroyeroftheSky]

But that's modding, not playing. They're completely different.

Missing things in a thread isn't scummy, but playing in a way that would allow it is unquestionably anti-town. What you're saying could very easily be your excuse in advance for doing something that

is

scummy at a more significant point of the game, but could be explained away by saying you 'missed' something.

It somewhat notable, but I'm not seeing Stoofer's KingPin vote or the explanation for it particularly scummy right now. If something else like this happens later in the game I probably won't treat it so favourably.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

I agree with DOTS. Feel much more comfortable with the primate wagon.

[Johoohno]

@ Primate: You haven't answered my question in post 44! Actually, you haven't said anything for five days now (yes I see that you haven't posted at all since Friday on the forum, but we've got no reason for that absence).

[EmpTyger]

Stoofer:

I was just describing my thought process in a non-literal way. At the time the question was "why did I vote KingPin?". I was being asked about my thought process not about the procedure I used. What was important at that stage was not the literal process but my thought process. If the question had been "How did you go about selecting KingPin?" then I would have given a more literal, 'procedural' answer. I still think that, in context, my answer was clearly not a literal description of my actual process but of my thinking.

That has to be the worst excuse for lying in a game of mafia I have heard. “I wasn’t being asked directly about it, so I thought it was okay to lie?” “I thought it was perfectly fine to present *something that didn’t happen* as if it did?” I mean, considering what KingPin asked you- especially his last sentence:

<snip>
So why the "lurker" vote? Or were you just tossing out "lurker" to justify a vote that really was just a random vote change. To me it seems like if it was a random vote change that you would have called it such. But if you normally toss out random votes without any substance behind them and put a reason for that vote as a distraction, then you seem pretty scummy. Lastly, do you normally not answer straight forward questions and not expect to get called on them?

And, if my explanation is wrong, what's your explanation for all your repeated "lynch me now please"s?

Well that was semi-flippant.

There’s flippant, there’s semi-flippant, and there’s overdoing it. You posted your “lynch me now please”s 3 times, 5 days apart, the last of which with the preface “I meant it when I wrote”. That to me falls squarely in the “overdoing it” category. You are trying too hard to sweep this away as part of a general pattern of sloppy behavior. It’s not.

My point is that I am not one of those people who keeps obsessive notes or conducts rigorous textual analysis of the entire thread. I often miss things when reading through games quickly.
<snip>

I’m not talking about the incorrect lurker vote. This wasn’t you slipping up about something you misnoticed in the thread. This wasn’t you missing something on a quick read. (For that matter, it was halfway through page 1.) This was your own vote, your own thought processes- there was nothing to “miss”. You said you did something you didn’t do.

You lied about the reasoning behind your vote.

[mneme]

Wow.

Stoofer is scum. No two ways about it.

He lied about his vote early on, then brought the player with a competing wagon to L-1 without comment.

Who am I voting, again? Oh, right, that guy. I'm pretty sure I'll be voting him at the end of today, too; at this point it would take a cop claim or something of similar magnitude to get me to change votes.

[the silent speaker]

Vote count

:

Primate

: 4 (DestroyerOfTheSky, Johoohno, TheSweatpantsNinja, Mr Stoofer)

Mr Stoofer

: 3 (mneme, The Fonz, Massive)

DestroyerOfTheSky

: 1 (mathcam)

KingPin

: 1 (Primate)

mneme

: 1 (Primate)

Not voting, but can

: KingPin

6 to lynch. 2 more to lynch Primate, 3+ for anyone else.

[Mr Stoofer]

You lied about the reasoning behind your vote.

Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong.

Wrong.

You could could not be more wrong. You could try, but you would fail.

Stoofer is scum.

Also wrong.

He ... brought the player with a competing wagon to L-1 without comment.

In which post did I do that? [Bearing in mind you are so ready to call what was clearly an honest mistake a "lie".]

[Mr Stoofer]

Also, can mneme, The Fonz, Massive and EmpTyger answer the following questions:

1. Do you believe me when I say that I missed KingPin's original vote?

2. If yes: then what was my motive for "lying" about how I picked KingPin?

3. If no: (a) what was my real reason for voting Kingpin? (b) why did I lie about it?

[mneme]

He ... brought the player with a competing wagon to L-1 without comment.

In which post did I do that? [Bearing in mind you are so ready to call what was clearly an honest mistake a "lie".]

Er, post 68? You're still voting Primate, you know, and post 69 from Fonz made it clear that your vote was the #5 vote...

I'm not suggesting that you lied as a matter of strategy, nor am I invoking LAL. But the level and type of inattention involved in your prevarication regarding your "lurker" vote (not to mention the error in the vote itself), combined with the levels of inattention involved in your -1 -on-Primate vote read "scum" to me.

Players make mistakes (I make a lot of them), but the type of the mistakes are often pointers to alignment.

[Mr Stoofer]

He ... brought the player with a competing wagon to L-1 without comment.

In which post did I do that? [Bearing in mind you are so ready to call what was clearly an honest mistake a "lie".]

Er, post 68?

I'd rather

vote: Primate

however.

I think the points made in posts 62, 63, 64 are good ones; especially because I know that Primate is a very thoughtful player and I just can't see him being so generous with his second vote, to a player whose alignment he (supposedly) does not know, without an ulterior motive.

What are the words in blue if not a comment? Please explain to me why your post [80] is not a lie?

You're still voting Primate, you know, and post 69 from Fonz made it clear that your vote was the #5 vote...

Right. But Fonz unvoted in [69] too, leaving him on L-2. So what's the problem? And if it is a problem, why doesn't it apply to everyone who is still voting him?

[massive]

1. Do you believe me when I say that I missed KingPin's original vote?

I don't know. Obviously it's ineffective to try and lurker-bandwagon someone who's not really lurking. But I think you would have had to, I don't know, not read anything between when you posted the first time and when you posted the second time in order for me to believe that you "missed" it. But no, ultimately, I think this was you being sloppy.

2. If yes: then what was my motive for "lying" about how I picked KingPin?

I wouldn't have had any problem with you being sloppy if someone had posted about KingPin's post and you said "My bad." The fact that your reasoning for your vote came before this all happened is what makes you look more than just "sloppy" to me. You might believe that you have a legitimate lynch on your hands, and you have either (a) seen that no one is actually checking to see whether KingPin was lurking or (b) not gone back to verify that your claims are legit. But I think your motive here was to at least get KingPin close enough to lynch for him to roleclaim. Post 28 is clearly you trying to heap suspicion on him, not for his lurking, but for his defense.

If you are just sloppy, you are REALLY sloppy, as KingPin even points out in his post (27) that he had posted -- and this was right before your "reason." You read his post. You obviously didn't care enough to go back and see if what he said was true.

[Mr Stoofer]

You might believe that you have a legitimate lynch on your hands

I think your motive here was to at least get KingPin close enough to lynch for him to roleclaim

This is really desperate, reaching, stuff. How on earth could my "lie" have achieved that? Remember, the inaccuracy was in suggesting that there was more than one player who had not posted at that point. How could I advance KingPin towards a lynch by suggesting that other (unnamed) players had not posted?

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Seems to me that this "lie" wouldn't have much benefit for scum. Did anyone really think that kingpin was in some kind of danger of being lynched after that vote?

[mneme]

He ... brought the player with a competing wagon to L-1 without comment.

In which post did I do that?

Er, post 68?

I'd rather

vote: Primate

however.

I think the points made in posts 62, 63, 64 are good ones; especially because I know that Primate is a very thoughtful player and I just can't see him being so generous with his second vote, to a player whose alignment he (supposedly) does not know, without an ulterior motive.

What are the words in blue if not a comment? Please explain to me why your post [80] is not a lie?

Er...I don't -care- whether you explain your votes when you make them. If I want to know an argument why -I- should vote for someone (or, for that matter, if I want to know why you are voting for someone), I'll ask.

I -do- care whether point out, when you put someone into the hammer zone, that you are doing so. Not doing so risks lynching two people -- the target and the unwitting sap who hammers.

Voting primate in that way was an extremely anti-town action.

Right. But Fonz unvoted in [69] too, leaving him on L-2.

Right. Town points to Fonz, scum points to you.

So what's the problem? And if it is a problem, why doesn't it apply to everyone who is still voting him?

Because they didn't bring him to -1? There's nothing wrong with the Primate bandwagon -- I might be on it if there weren't a better candidate today. But each vote progressively reduces difficulty of lynching someone -- in a 5 player game, the first vote takes you from needing 3/4 of the game to needing 2/3 of the remaining game, the second to needing 1/2 of the remaining game, and the third to needing 0% of the remaining game. And these numbers are even harsher in a larger game -- in a 12 person game, l-3 needs 3/7 to lynch, l-2 needs 1/3, and l-1 needs a mere 1/5 (and, of course, L needs 0/4). Drastically increasing the ease of a quicklynch without any real deliberation is antitown.

[mneme]

Seems to me that this "lie" wouldn't have much benefit for scum. Did anyone really think that kingpin was in some kind of danger of being lynched after that vote?

I think this is pretty obvous, but...

Yes, Stoofer's "lie" wasn't at the LAL level; it was carelessness. But that kind of carelessness when placing a vote or explaining it isn't protown.

[Mr Stoofer]

Firstly, you said that I voted for Primate without comment. That was wrong, wasn't it? Was it carelessness, or a lie?

Secondly, if you accept that my "lie" was carelessness, it wasn't a lie at all, was it?

I am fairly pissed off about this because you accuse me of lying when it was "pretty obvious" (your words) that I was just careless. But then you say something that is blatantly untrue and then don't even have the good grace to admit you are wrong.

[mneme]

Mr. Stoofer. Stop struggling, it just makes the hurting worse.

I didn't say you voted Primate without comment. I said you brought him to L-1 without comment. These aren't the same thing. Any sane player would know what I meant.

Moreover, you did lie. You've admitted you lied. Feel free to join Liars Anon. any time now. You -also- were careless. I don't think your lie is of the sort that needs bring automatic lynching (ie, false role claims and other "this seems like a good idea, but on a meta-level, it just isn't" lies), but it's not doing your credibility any good.

There's a huge difference between "Stoofer thinks what mneme says means something than different than what he actually meant" and "stoofer said this was his thought process, but this wasn't actually, you know, true; he just described what probably would have been his thought process if he'd bothered".

In the former case, it's actually your reading at fault; I made it clear what I was saying and what the problem is; it was clear then, it was clear when I restated it so anyone would understand it, and it's clear now. Your reading made no sense, and doesn't even fit the way I play the game; I've gone down on record -numerous- times as not caring whether people explain their votes when they make them.

In the latter, it's your writing at fault; you were careless, then you made a plausible explaination for your carelessness that wasn't actually true, then you've been playing a defensive game ever after except for the time you tried to get someone to hammer Primate accidentally (I have no reason to believe you accidentally brought him to L-1, and every reason to believe you did this "careless" thing deliberately).

[KingPin]

Mr Stoofer,
You have lied. Being careless does not make your lie a truth. You lied when you stated that you had reviewed the list of "all players not posting" and then choosing one to vote for. Is this a statement the truth or were you careless when you explained it and used a lie to explain your simple carelessness? The town would decide.

Frankly I could care less about your personal feelings regarding accusations in the game. It is a game. Please review the game before YOU make accusations. Your careless, uninformed accusations got you into this mess and your careless explanations of those accusations have kept you in this mess.

Personally I have you as more anti-town that pro-town.

[massive]

This is really desperate, reaching, stuff. How on earth could my "lie" have achieved that? Remember, the inaccuracy was in suggesting that there was more than one player who had not posted at that point. How could I advance KingPin towards a lynch by suggesting that other (unnamed) players had not posted?

Uh, Stoof, you only asked me to answer two if I thought answer one was 'sloppy' -- so calling me out about 'your lie' kinda is moot. I don't think your initial vote was anything but sloppy, but I think it's easy to see how, if you're Mafia, you tried to turn it to your advantage.

[Johoohno]

Focus has been on Primate and Stoofer so far, here's a post to widen up the field a bit (but my vote remains on Primate for the time being).

ThesweatpantsNinja

: I don't like his vote for KingPin in post 22. He explained his vote (in post 32) as 90% ironic. The thing is that I see KingPin's post 21 as ironic. Since TSPN mentions irony I must believe he understands it, which makes me even more uncertain of how he actually read and interpreted KingPin's post.

EmpTyger

: I might be a bit paranoid but I'm being a bit suspicious of EmpTyger. He was the one who got the whole Primate affair started by asking to borrow a vote from Primate (post 23) and it feels as a safe move to do, you won't get in the heat for asking for someone's vote (whereas the opposite is risky). I know this might be far fetched, but I still want this thought to be planted and pondered on byy the rest of you.

Some questions

@ Everyone, but Primate

: Who of you would have acted the same way as Primate in post 24 and 34?

@ Primate

: Have you ever played a game where you didn't have any votes? (If so, I'd appreciate a link.)

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Erm, I was responding to kingpin's fairly obvious overreaction to voting without explanation by. . . voting without explanation. Hence the 90 percent irony. And no, I would not have acted (as town), as primate has, so I'm voting for him.

[EmpTyger]

I will probably not be able to post until after the weekend.

---

Stoofer:
Really? Trying to misrepresent mneme’s words? Is that your only attempt at a defense of how you put a player at lynch-1? I mean, why don’t you say whether you intended to put Primate at lynch-1 instead of just trying to twisting mneme’s [accurate] accusation?

Also, can mneme, The Fonz, Massive and EmpTyger answer the following questions:

1. Do you believe me when I say that I missed KingPin's original vote?

2. If yes: then what was my motive for "lying" about how I picked KingPin?

3. If no: (a) what was my real reason for voting Kingpin? (b) why did I lie about it?

Way to burden-shift.

No, I don’t know what your motive for lying was. But that doesn’t mean you don’t have one. I could make any number of speculative guesses (from “you’re mafia with KingPin and were distancing with a vote you could easily remove” to “all of the mafia are very active posters so you wanted to set an anti-lurker tone early, knowing that it would only hurt townspeople”). But that’s not the point, and I’m not going to play the “I-come-up-with-a-theory, you-dismiss-it-as-speculative-desperate-reaching” game.

The obligation is on the liar to prove that they’re not being antitown, not on the town to prove that lying is bad. “Lynch-all-liars” works because there is no reason why townspeople should lie, so anyone who lies should be lynched as antitown. If you have a reason for lying as a townsperson, it is up to *you* to provide it. So no burden-shifting. *You* answer to the question.

Why did you need to give a false description of your approximate thought process, instead of accurately describing why you cast a vote?

---

Johoohoo:

<snip>

EmpTyger

: I might be a bit paranoid but I'm being a bit suspicious of EmpTyger. He was the one who got the whole Primate affair started by asking to borrow a vote from Primate (post 23) and it feels as a safe move to do, you won't get in the heat for asking for someone's vote (whereas the opposite is risky). I know this might be far fetched, but I still want this thought to be planted and pondered on byy the rest of you.
<snip>

What exactly are you accusing me of? I mean, playing it safe by sticking my neck out, and then defending Primate? Is there anything more to this than, “A mentioned B; therefore, A may be mafia”?

(Yes to whether I would have done as Primate did, although as already stated, for slightly different motivations. But there’s been enough variance on opinions from everybody regarding this that I’m not too critical of his stated explanation.)

---

mathcam:
You want to actually commit to something? To say that your only post this week was uncertain would be an understatement.

---

Primate:
Now you’re posting elsewhere but not here on the site. Meaning KingPin’s accusation now holds a bit more weight that I won’t be bearing.
I will probably not be able to post until after the weekend.

[The Fonz]

Firstly, you said that I voted for Primate without comment. That was wrong, wasn't it? Was it carelessness, or a lie?

Mr. Stoofer. Stop struggling, it just makes the hurting worse.

I didn't say you voted Primate without comment. I said you brought him to L-1 without comment. These aren't the same thing. Any sane player would know what I meant.

I think it's quite obvious mneme is in the right here. He wasn't saying you never commented on Primate- he was saying you put him at L-1, without any indication that you were doing so. This is anti-town.

Some questions

@ Everyone, but Primate

: Who of you would have acted the same way as Primate in post 24

Not in a million years.

@Stoofer:

: I don't really think it's relevant whether you really believed KingPin hadn't posted or not. I'd guess that you did, on the grounds that making a post in the knowledge that the reason given was bogus, even as a random vote, doesn't make much sense.

My impression is that you came up with the whole 'list of non-posters' thing to make it appear that you had thought more about your vote than you really had, to make you look town.

[mathcam]

Finally, my stance on issues surrounding Primate (much of which has already been said): I agree that it's more informative for EmpTyger to have control of the vote than for Primate to be in charge of 2, but I see this more as an argument that whoever switched the votes wasn't pro-town than it is an argument that Primate should (voluntarily or not) let Emp dictate one of the votes.

I don't understand this. Can you explain it a bit more simply please?

A key issue in the debate was whether or not it was more beneficial to the town, from the information-gathering point of view, to have one person in control of two votes or two people each in control of one vote. I was agreeing that the latter was more informative. This point only seemed worth making because it seemed obvious to me and yet some people were disagreeing. The natural conclusion is that the reallocation of votes was acting against the interests of the town, but there is also the conclusion that a pro-town Primate should give Emp his vote back to restore the balance. To me, the information gained from

the unforced offer

of giving the vote back is the more important thing, though as evidenced by my "noncommittalness," I'm not exactly sure what to make of it.

My brain says that Primate's scum and giving away half of his vote in an attempt to absolve himself of some responsibility and appear pro-town, but my gut seems to believe his explanations.

This reads to me like you are trying to have it both ways. Primate has collected a lot of votes now, so you should to commit to this one way or another.

I see it more as that I don't yet have it either way. Other people's sureness, or lack thereof, doesn't have as much effect on me as a compelling argument one way or another (which is still missing). The day is still only 4 pages old, and I'm not sure in what sense I "should" have to commit one way or another by now.

mathcam: You want to actually commit to something? To say that your only post this week was uncertain would be an understatement.

That seems like a fairly rightonthelevelstatement to me, no "under" about it.

As for commitals since then, I've grown more sure that the argument against Stoof is meritless. He's certainly caught himself in his own bumbling mess of words, but I think the question of what motive he would have had for any of this remains completely unanswered. Unless you think Stoof mentally processed "Ah, I'm scum. Now I get to lie about whatever I want to on day 1," I don't see how his actions today, however contradictory, can be seen as an argument for him as scum.

I actually still like my DOTS vote.

Cam