Mafia 85 - Murder at the Bus Stop (game over)

[Surye]

Thanks Mana, guess I am guilty of not paying as close attention myself, I missed the end of that post ^^;

Anyways, my point on MT's post stands 100% still.

Mod edit
Votecount:
Surye (3): Demon Pineapple, farside22, Megatheory
BlakAdder (3): Shanba, Alabaska J, Sir Tornado
Sir Tornado (2): Moratorium, BlakAdder
Empking (1): RestFermata
Wall-E (1): Mana_Ku
Cream147 (1): Empking
Slicey (1): Wall-E
farside22 (1): martin413
RestFermata (1): Riceballtail
armlx (1): Xtoxm
Xtoxm (1): fouxdufafa
Megatheory (1): armlx

Not voting (8): al4xz, Azuma, Cream147, Jebus, Slepz, DynamoXI, Surye, Slicey

[Surye]

I'm surprised farside22 voted me on that actually. It was an early game vote, that didn't last long, and generated some discussion. There was no bandwagonning at all. I'm kinda hoping she has a better point then this.

[Alabaska J]

Even if there was, how is that scummy in the least?

That + the misrepresentation =

unvote, vote: Megatheory

[Slicey]

Also, 1 vote does not a case make, al4xz.

This sentence reminds me of something Kristoph Gavin said in an Apollo Justice cross-examination...difference is, what he said still made sense, where as this does not, no matter how you look at it. Care to explain?

Incidentally, I don't see anything wrong with Moratorium's post. It seems like it could be useful to reference back to later on, more as a factual summary of what has happened so far than an opinion.

I was trying to sound fancy. >_> al4xz said there was a case against Moratorium, when in actuality, only one person voted for him (armlx). People were just saying how useless his post was, which I disagree with.

As for whoever asked why I didn't vote Empking, I don't think one somewhat scummy post automatically makes them scum. And I don't like unvoting and voting like crazy, unless it's the random voting phase. If he makes another scummy post or two, I may vote for him but as of right now, I see no reason to vote.

[Riceballtail]

UNVOTE

Random phase is over, and I am not convinced of anyone to lynch right now.

[Alabaska J]

we need more unvotes, actually.

[farside22]

I'm surprised farside22 voted me on that actually. It was an early game vote, that didn't last long, and generated some discussion. There was no bandwagonning at all. I'm kinda hoping she has a better point then this.

I did that long post before you unvote. Your explaination of your unvote didn't really impress me.

I'm liking SirT's responses, and I can see his point. I wish he had just been more clear, and avoided this all. His vote was really misleading.

Unvote

Now you are not voting anyone. Now I saw your case on MT. I don't think anyone really but me said anything about your vote. (I could be wrong) but I didn't see a discussion on it. The problem is you voted for him based on his play style and unvoted him because why exactly? The reason above doesn't tell me much. My issue is when I see people vote without much following a BW and unvote without much else said it ding's my scumdar which is why at this time I have not unvoted.

[Alabaska J]

The problem is you voted for him based on his play style and unvoted him because why exactly?

He unvoted for the reasons he posted when he unvoted…

[farside22]

The problem is you voted for him based on his play style and unvoted him because why exactly?

He unvoted for the reasons he posted when he unvoted…

I think he is being vague. I don't like vague.

[Surye]

The problem is you voted for him based on his play style and unvoted him because why exactly?

He unvoted for the reasons he posted when he unvoted*

I think he is being vague. I don't like vague.

You're clouding the issue. You're isolating my unvote post, and not looking at my discussion of how his meta makes the playstyle a null tell. When I voted, these things had not come into light. I may have been vague in my unvote post (I don't think so), but I continued to explain why Sir T didn't deserve a vote for several other posts.

[Surye]

Damnit,

Mod: Can you delete my dupe? I hit refresh at the wrong page

Mod: done

[Moratorium]

Had a look at that PBP i put together again this morning, just to see what I could determine from it. My thought process is basically, if I can somehow neutrally seperate the general talking points out of the thread, and then assign various participants as PRO or ANTI said talking point, I could attempt to keep a tally on various players and try to get a better feel for their overall stance.

The immediate first issue I saw was, though it might be easy to assign someone as PRO or ANTI based on what they have said, it is a magnitude more difficult to then say that PRO is good for town, or PRO is good for mafia, as that assignment hinges on personal opinion. Let's start with some data:

Topic 1: Voting out lurkers.
Pro stance expressed: al4xz, Megatheory, Restfermata
Anti stance expressed: Wall-E, Mana-Ku, Cream147, Shanba

Topic 2: Voting-to-Pressure
Pro stance expressed: Slicey, fouxdufafa
Anti stance expressed: Slepz, Shanba, Empking

Topic 3: Releasing a play-by-play without conclusions
Pro stance expressed: Moratorium, Wall-E, DynamoXI, al4xz, Slicey, Cream147
Anti stance expressed: farside22, Sir Tornado, armlx, Riceballtail

My opinion for these three topics, for example, would be that for all three cases, PRO is pro-town. So if I just look at this arbitrarily without going into specific details, a name like Shanba emerges as having two pro-scum strikes on these topics. It's not enough for a vote, I'll have to go look at the conversations themselves and see what was said, but I'll probably keep something like this in my notations as a tally for these and future topics.

Something else: 20% of our players have not contributed anything beyond a /confirm and some jokevotes or asking permission to lurk. Azuma, martin312, Demon Pineapple, Jebus, and Xtoxm.

Another tally of interest to me is the number of times someone goes out of his way to defend someone else (Ctrl-F for "defend"). So far this tally is fairly spread out, and so there are not enough cases of this to suspect anyone in particular, but I think over time that's something good to keep tabs on.

I do have a concern about the reaction that putting out a PBP generated. Let's assume that I was scum (which I am not). The benefit to me to spend an hour or two reading through the entire thread, trying to figure out what everyone is saying, counting it all up, correcting my numerous mistakes, all this just to "make it appear" that I am contributing (I haven't exactly been mute during this game).. really seems disproportionate to the potential benefit of having a quick, neutral reference to the opening of the game. I know some of you disagree (as I've listed you above), but that's my case on myself. My REAL concern is that the reaction this generated will cause a "chilling effect" on anyone else's desire to share information with town ("Well, I'd post about this thing I learned, but that last guy who posted the PBP got slaughtered... forget it, I'll just lurk more").

This said, SirT, you've parried my foil. I don't believe my case on your posting style and metagame to be strong enough to garner support, nor do I really have enough faith in it myself. I don't think there is really anyone out there at the moment with enough evidence against them worth a vote at this time.

Unvote

PS: If anyone else has any information that they have been able to extract from the PBP, please contribute.

[Slicey]

My vote stays on Slicey for now. Nothing worse has popped up yet. Be back Thursday.

Any particular reason you're voting for me? Just curious.

[farside22]

The problem is you voted for him based on his play style and unvoted him because why exactly?

He unvoted for the reasons he posted when he unvoted*

I think he is being vague. I don't like vague.

You're clouding the issue. You're isolating my unvote post, and not looking at my discussion of how his meta makes the playstyle a null tell. When I voted, these things had not come into light. I may have been vague in my unvote post (I don't think so), but I continued to explain why Sir T didn't deserve a vote for several other posts.

I saw where you pointed out the links that were being brought up and stated that it is a null tell. Also I disagree with what you said here:

Votes often lack an explaination to get and analize a reaction. More risky to the voter, because of the things you're saying, but can be quite useful.

People don't react to votes. They react to what the vote represents and what is said in that vote. It's easy for anyone to just vote then what kind of game would we have if people just voted and did nothing else?

[Empking]

Would you mind showing (by way of quotes) that I was a gainst voting for pressure.

The PbP is complicated but pretending to contribute when not contributing is scummy and I don't buy Morat's excuse and his last post seems to just to intimidate people from pressing it.

My REAL concern is that the reaction this generated will cause a "chilling effect" on anyone else's desire to share information with town ("Well, I'd post about this thing I learned, but that last guy who posted the PBP got slaughtered... forget it, I'll just lurk more").

[Cream147]

My opinion for these three topics, for example, would be that for all three cases, PRO is pro-town.

That is just an opinion though, and those 3 topics are really opinionated topics that always, always, always split people. On a sidenote I was pro for voting to pressure by the way, if you recall *winks*.

[Surye]

The problem is you voted for him based on his play style and unvoted him because why exactly?

He unvoted for the reasons he posted when he unvoted*

I think he is being vague. I don't like vague.

You're clouding the issue. You're isolating my unvote post, and not looking at my discussion of how his meta makes the playstyle a null tell. When I voted, these things had not come into light. I may have been vague in my unvote post (I don't think so), but I continued to explain why Sir T didn't deserve a vote for several other posts.

I saw where you pointed out the links that were being brought up and stated that it is a null tell. Also I disagree with what you said here:

Votes often lack an explaination to get and analize a reaction. More risky to the voter, because of the things you're saying, but can be quite useful.

People don't react to votes. They react to what the vote represents and what is said in that vote. It's easy for anyone to just vote then what kind of game would we have if people just voted and did nothing else?

I didn't say that's the only way to play, nor did I say that's all someone should do. But it is a valid tactic. People do react to votes. Alot.

[Moratorium]

Would you mind showing (by way of quotes) that I was a gainst voting for pressure.

You weren't, my mistake, I'll probably get a lot of this type of complaint for trying to get this done too quickly.

Thinking this over, having a player who is willing to put all this crap together probably did nothing but make me a big NK target for wanting to emphasize people's trends.

[farside22]

Would you mind showing (by way of quotes) that I was a gainst voting for pressure.

You weren't, my mistake, I'll probably get a lot of this type of complaint for trying to get this done too quickly.

Thinking this over, having a player who is willing to put all this crap together probably did nothing but make me a big NK target for wanting to emphasize people's trends.

Just to make a point on PBP. I know players who are scum that have done a PBP in the past just to look more town. I know scum and town who are able to do it with analysis, however scum have a trickier time with this. Doing a PBP is just a way of saying hey look I'm contributing I'm not scum while really not scum hunting.

[Surye]

Would you mind showing (by way of quotes) that I was a gainst voting for pressure.

You weren't, my mistake, I'll probably get a lot of this type of complaint for trying to get this done too quickly.

Thinking this over, having a player who is willing to put all this crap together probably did nothing but make me a big NK target for wanting to emphasize people's trends.

Just to make a point on PBP. I know players who are scum that have done a PBP in the past just to look more town. I know scum and town who are able to do it with analysis, however scum have a trickier time with this. Doing a PBP is just a way of saying hey look I'm contributing I'm not scum while really not scum hunting.

Some of my best work as scum involved a PBPA (see Dynomite Mafia)

[armlx]

Wall-E, my vote is not for lack of contribution. Its for attacking something that isn't a scum tell.

[Wall-E]

@Slicey: I stated my reason for voting for you when I cast the vote.

@Moritorium: A+ PBPs, sir.

@armlx: Ok, thanks for the clarification.

[armlx]

@armlx: Ok, thanks for the clarification.

I can understand the confusion, as I attacked Moratorium for his PBP(not)A.

[fouxdufafa]

Okay, I see a lot of conversation that I'm not getting in on. I have class during the day and rehearsal at night, so I'm only getting on here once or twice a day just fyi. I'll try and contribute something whenever I do(excluding this, just letting you guys know why I'm not posting a whole lot). I'll be on later tonight.

[Megatheory]

So you're looking at that one post and concluding that Sir T is "pretending to play." Can you really say that about his other posts? I think he's one of the better contributors so far, even if I don't agree with him.

Can I say that about his other posts? Uhh.. no? Which is why I not only unvoted him, but also defended him? Are you even paying attention to this game?

You're acting like I'm still voting him. Your post is full of silly.

You're acting like your past actions have no relevance. They do. It's a big part of scumhunting.

You changed your mind later. That's not the point. Other than that one post you quoted, what made you think Sir T was pretending to play at the time you voted? I'm guessing you won't be able to point anything out because Sir T has contributed a lot. I think it's a bandwagon vote because you took one post and asserting that Sir T was pretending to play when his previous posts say otherwise.

By the way, your unvote post says nothing about Sir T's aleged "pretending to play."

[Megatheory] opens with an old post that has been discussed and explained...

Why are you trying so hard to make us think your past actions have no relevance? And, no you haven't explained it much at all.

...(for the most part, I can explain why I thought he was pretending to play if you want, but lets just move on for a moment)...

So you admit you've never explained this. Why haven't you already? Since "pretending to play" is your reason for voting Sir T, I would think if you were town trying to expose Sir T as scum, you would have explained this right away.

...He connects me strongly in many places to voting for Sir T.

He proceeds to be baffled as to why people are voting Sir T, and say the case is over his play style (pay attention to this, it's important). He then again comes back to me, repeats his earlier statement, connection it to his most recent post then votes me.

I am not voting you because the case on Sir T is mostly over playstyle. I am voting you because you voted and justified it by taking one post out of the overall context of Sir T's play. My confusion over why Sir T was suspected is a separate issue.

Even if there was, how is that scummy in the least?

That + the misrepresentation =

unvote, vote: Megatheory

Please be more specific, I have no idea what you are talking about here.

The problem is you voted for him based on his play style and unvoted him because why exactly?

He unvoted for the reasons he posted when he unvoted*

I think he is being vague. I don't like vague.

You're clouding the issue. You're isolating my unvote post, and not looking at my discussion of how his meta makes the playstyle a null tell. When I voted, these things had not come into light. I may have been vague in my unvote post (I don't think so), but I continued to explain why Sir T didn't deserve a vote for several other posts.

This is your vote post:

unvote

vote Empking

There! I am voting now. Want to add something?

I'm starting to side with the SirT votes. And this really did it for me. Pretending to play is unacceptable.

Vote: Sir Tornado

This is the only post between your vote and unvote:

I'm starting to side with the SirT votes. And this really did it for me. Pretending to play is unacceptable. Vote: Sir Tornado

This is ironic, considering only I and Armlx seem to be actually playing this game. The rest of you seem to think (before this page) discussing lurkers belongs to mafia games. Try the "mafia discussion" forum.

Pretending to play early is MUCH worse then making theory discussion in early game.

This is your unvote post:

I'm liking SirT's responses, and I can see his point. I wish he had just been more clear, and avoided this all. His vote was really misleading.

Unvote

This is the post where you discussed metagaming:

Basically I'd see this particular pattern as a nulltell when meta supports it. Unless it's a REALLY bad pattern, it's not worth droning on when it's easily provable it's a null tell based on meta. And while his behavior was worth discussing, I don't think it's going to amount to much more.

Your thoughs about Sir T's meta didn't come until after you had unvoted so you can't really use that as an explanation for why you unvoted. Further, you say his meta says that his play now is a null tell, so that wouldn't explain your unvote anyway. Further, none of this has anything to do with the idea that Sir T was "pretending to play."