Mini 659: The Neighborhood- Game over on Day 6

[Rashiminos]

Rash is a loose cannon. He's the smartest of the bunch, and a slippery debator. If there's one person I can count on to be a thorn in my side, it's Rash. He now seems convinced that I am town, but I don't know if I can count on him to stick to that view. Of all the players, he's the one who has been most likley to change his mind at the last minute to do the right thing.

My main concern is that, if I kill Rash, bionic may take this as evidence of me-as-scum b/c Rash attacked me so much in the past. This factor was about to make my decision for me when I realized that (1) the argument is WIFOM so long as I can pin the same motives on bionic (2) Rash has implied that bionic is the obvious choice for final scum. I should be able to use these tidbits to form reasonable doubts in fhq's mind, and that should be all I need to win.

So... yeah... sorry Rash. You're too good an opponant to keep alive.

kill: Rashiminos

This is full of win. I also liked the part where I was a potentially a cop, although perhaps for the wrong reasons...

[crywolf20084]

><! Shaddup! I know I shoulda died so many times!

And just about everything I did, I though about it AFTER the fact and realized that I could've done something better.

[gorckat]

><! Shaddup! I know I shoulda died so many times!

And just about everything I did, I though about it AFTER the fact and realized that I could've done something better.

I felt your sticking around was worth a title nom.

I nommed Ythill for Best Performance: Mafia.

If I can think of any others (like anyone who figured it all out or something- I gotta skim back) I'll nom them as well.

[Rashiminos]

Then Rash-town, who was supposedly going to vote for fhq, came in and voted for DR.

I'm not sure if Ythill was just saying this for effect, but I'll comment anyways. Crywolf, Ythill, and DR (actually for what Oman did) were high on my list for day 4, and fhq was 4th in the queue. While I was disturbed by the lack of "results," I was more convinced that Ythill's voting was anti-town. DR's claims naturally provided two clearer choices, and voting fhq was reliant on DR's claim being plausible enough, which it wasn't. This is just a long way of saying that I wasn't likely to have voted fhq in that situation.

[crywolf20084]

><! Shaddup! I know I shoulda died so many times!

And just about everything I did, I though about it AFTER the fact and realized that I could've done something better.

I felt your sticking around was worth a title nom.

I nommed Ythill for Best Performance: Mafia.

If I can think of any others (like anyone who figured it all out or something- I gotta skim back) I'll nom them as well.

Yay!! Thank you!!

[Ythill]

Back for a victory dance.

Rash, I hope to see you in another game some day. You have keen vision and getting out of your spotlight is like escaping a jaw-trap. I thought I was going to have to chew my leg off.

Even though it's clear in the mafia-chat, I'll explain that D4 debacle. I was checking in constantly, waiting for wolf to vote fhq so that I could hammer. I'd been rallying so hard against DR that it was too risky for me to be the third vote on fhq. If bionic checked in before wolf, it might have cost us the game.

Then, on D5, when I was arguing with Rash, I realized that it had the ring of defending the mafia's actions. I thought for sure that Rash or bionic would catch that. It all ended well though. Still undefeated as scum. Woot!

Wolf, your performance was truly astonishing. I don't know how you lived as long as you did, but I've got to tip my hat to you. That "annoying fly" strategy worked

very

well. I think you've been my most useful buddy ever.

Gorkat, I intend to nominate you for most enjoyable game (even though I'm in the running for it and you're sure to beat me) because this game was a nail-biter from page 1 until the final vote. The GF + miller with no cop was brilliant and the balance seemed just about perfect. Best game I've played so far!

[gorckat]

Gorkat, I intend to nominate you for most enjoyable game (even though I'm in the running for it and you're sure to beat me) because this game was a nail-biter from page 1 until the final vote. The GF + miller with no cop was brilliant and the balance seemed just about perfect. Best game I've played so far!

Wow, thanks

I'm really sorry the flavor dipped off so much at the end. I'm glad you think the balance was right. Oman was particularly hot about his role- we had an exchange in private where he was asking about investigation immunity and I wouldn't confirm or deny it, so he felt like a gimped goon, epsecially since I hinted that he could be tracked making his message delivery (I explained the action targeted the recipient), but it gave him options for a fake-claim (such as one-shot cop or something, and then he could hole up afterwards).

The Neighbor recruitment also targeted, so that could have created a sticky mess.

What Oman/DR didn't know, and I didn't get a chance to mod-note above, is that if wolf and Ythill died first, he'd get to keep on killing. The town would have been clued in by a drastic change in kill methods (like bombs or fires or something).

destructor reviewed the setup, as well as MeMe giving it a once over to confirm the "Normal"ness of it (the first draft had nothing about the Witness Protection stuff, and I had to add it to give it Mafia "seasoning").

The setup was heavily inspired by destructor's Nubigena game: 2 goons, 1 mafia doc (unknown Night one) vs a gunsmith, a vig and some townies. In that game, the scum had to hope to avoid the doc night one and luckily killed the non-azwolging vig. I felt a tracker would have been more meaningful than the gunsmith with a mafia doc and vig, so I started with some ideas there.

I then really like thed idea of the Neighbor role, and also liked the idea of a mafia member who couldn't be part of a two-way conversation, and they both gave some neat things for a tracker to see. The 1x vig seemed reasonable.

Had Ythill not been the Neighbor target, I think things could have been very different. It basically dictated the Night 2 kill else Ythill be outed on some kind of slipperyness. I admit a little attempt at some bastardness by opening the thread Night 3 and closing it Day 4. I really wanted Ythill to think someone else could have been a silent partner of some sort But it failed

[gorckat]

Oh, yeah! And the role names designed to confuse, if I could. I went back and forth over not including the "Vanilla Townie" part (Bus Driver, Retired Cop) and I really considered making the Retired Cop a full blown deputy, but decided the way I went was less outright mean.

I was hoping that name claims might leave people thinking the Crossing Guard was some kind of Roleblocker.

I guess I'm a bit of a bastard mod at heart...watch out for my next game

[Rashiminos]

Rash, I hope to see you in another game some day. You have keen vision and getting out of your spotlight is like escaping a jaw-trap. I thought I was going to have to chew my leg off.

The problem is that the "jaw-trap" can be miscalibrated and latch onto a townie if I don't restrain myself (I think something similar to this effect happened between Darox and Tony), so in this game it was slower and I tried to conceptualize my complaints on poor reasoning of the target rather than scumtells, while waiting for the opportune moment to spring it. If the moment doesn't come along, then hopefully I straightened a townie out a little bit. Unfortunately, between a nolynch and a massclaim, the opportunity was lost in the confusion.

Even though it's clear in the mafia-chat, I'll explain that D4 debacle. I was checking in constantly, waiting for wolf to vote fhq so that I could hammer. I'd been rallying so hard against DR that it was too risky for me to be the third vote on fhq. If bionic checked in before wolf, it might have cost us the game.

I'll try to be more considerate of scum missing quicklynches in the future

Then, on D5, when I was arguing with Rash, I realized that it had the ring of defending the mafia's actions. I thought for sure that Rash or bionic would catch that. It all ended well though. Still undefeated as scum. Woot!

I think I was hovering around that idea, but the argument I was spouting clouded the issue, and crywolf just HAD to be lynched at that point. Had I not been preoccupied with defending myself, I may have pushed the day longer to bring up scumpartner issues, but I probably would have argued bionic/fhq prior to my death.

Wolf, your performance was truly astonishing. I don't know how you lived as long as you did, but I've got to tip my hat to you. That "annoying fly" strategy worked

very

well. I think you've been my most useful buddy ever.

Day 1: Lowell was a distraction (understatement).
Day 2: Doc claim usually buys a day (night was another issue...)
Day 3: "MYLO" leads to massclaim, and town tries unsuccessfully to rig game with roles while nolynching for "comfort." We nearly lynched scum, then in twilight we tried to lynch another scum despite the passing of the deadline.
Day 4: DR's claim is somewhat contradictory for a pro-town player. End result: DR is lynched.
Day 5: Last powerrole dies, so the "doc" has to go.

Day 1 could have been avoided if we ignored Lowell's tells at that time, as one scum suggested, but then he's a scapegoat for any day thereafter if his play continues. Day 2 would have been very risky from a pro-town perspective: Mislynch and take all kinds of flak, or hammer scum and fend off bussing arguments. Day 3, someone had to argue more firmly against nolynching, which can be plausible. Days 4 and 5 were automatic given claims.

I think the standard pro-nolynch argument goes something like: we have a greater chance to hit scum the next day.

I recall reading a game that came to 4-players and had a similar issue. The convention was to nolynch. However, Glork argued against it. IIRC, his remarks were something to the effect of:

"You have to convince two townies as opposed to one to be wrong on another townie, which is more difficult for the mafia to do."

-there was also probably a point made where the mafia would use the kill to distort the game further
-Also, if a lynch can't be agreed upon with either a) scum lynched, or b) mislynch with 2 townies wrong, then you have c) A nolynch by deadline, as opposed to overly conservative play.

Instead of directly opposing the nolynch (and in part because I wasn't too against it), on day 3 I changed my vote several times and caught crywolf following me around. Day 4 started with me thinking in that direction.

[Rashiminos]

I was hoping that name claims might leave people thinking the Crossing Guard was some kind of Roleblocker.

For a moment I thought I was a cop when I saw the PM.

[Rashiminos]

Turns out the game was Mafia 60 with Glork, MGM, MBL, and Patrick in a 4-person scenario.

[bionicchop2]

I think the standard pro-nolynch argument goes something like: we have a greater chance to hit scum the next day.

I recall reading a game that came to 4-players and had a similar issue. The convention was to nolynch. However, Glork argued against it. IIRC, his remarks were something to the effect of:

"You have to convince two townies as opposed to one to be wrong on another townie, which is more difficult for the mafia to do."

-there was also probably a point made where the mafia would use the kill to distort the game further
-Also, if a lynch can't be agreed upon with either a) scum lynched, or b) mislynch with 2 townies wrong, then you have c) A nolynch by deadline, as opposed to overly conservative play.

Instead of directly opposing the nolynch (and in part because I wasn't too against it), on day 3 I changed my vote several times and caught crywolf following me around. Day 4 started with me thinking in that direction.

When you have a night investigation role, it just seems silly to not give that role an opportunity for information. It just turns out this game had the fewest power roles of any mini I had played, so we didn't have the backup of the 'watcher' catching whoever killed the tracker as a backup. In hindsight, it is easy to say Wolf should have been lynched (same as I could say "I told you so" for wanting to lynch despite the doc claim on day 2) but it is not a productive thought process. If wolf had turned out to be doctor, then you can't rationalize a mislynch when she could have been confirmed at night.

Overall, congrats to scum. Comments on some individuals:

Elias - I feel you needed to participate more - especially once you were a confirmed townie (never 100%, but I think everyone trusted the vig claim). At that point, you are someone others can look at and know they aren't being intentionally mislead.

Rash - I think part of what Ythill is commending you for was one of your flaws this game. Props for deciding properly on DR and suspecting Ythill for most of the game - not taking anything away from that. The only issue is that the quote war got too diluted. There has to be a way to condense an argument and cut it off if it goes on too long. I try to read all posts in fair detail, but I will admit to ending up just skimming when you two were going back and forth.

As for me, I obviously still have some kinks to work out in my scum hunting. It is improving as I only really latched on to one town player (fhq was my 2nd suspect for a good part of the game. Elias / Mayhem were suspects, but I came off them farily easily). I was still tweaking some scum hunting techniques which I have dropped since this game. I have managed to lead a d1 lynch on scum in 2 of my games which have started recently, so I think I am improving.

[Ythill]

I think the standard pro-nolynch argument goes something like: we have a greater chance to hit scum the next day.

I recall reading a game that came to 4-players and had a similar issue. The convention was to nolynch. However, Glork argued against it. IIRC, his remarks were something to the effect of:

"You have to convince two townies as opposed to one to be wrong on another townie, which is more difficult for the mafia to do."

That was the argument I made here. I'm glad it wasn't effective.

When I play as scum, I try to forget my alignment whenever I can. And I am careful to tell the truth unless it is absolutely crucial that I lie. I was very entertained by the D3 debate where I was telling all of you who my buddies were and some of you were arguing against me.

And, FTR, we had picked out Oman as the spy on D1, which was confirmed by his N1 note. Also, remember that discussion on why mafia would NK the miller? The truth was never suggested... with a spy and a GF, we thought killing user was the only surefire way of

not

killing the cop. Little did we know...

[Rashiminos]

When you have a night investigation role, it just seems silly to not give that role an opportunity for information. It just turns out this game had the fewest power roles of any mini I had played, so we didn't have the backup of the 'watcher' catching whoever killed the tracker as a backup. In hindsight, it is easy to say Wolf should have been lynched (same as I could say "I told you so" for wanting to lynch despite the doc claim on day 2) but it is not a productive thought process. If wolf had turned out to be doctor, then you can't rationalize a mislynch when she could have been confirmed at night.

I didn't say the nolynch argument was bad. The reasons you give here are valid, but I thought I had reason to believe that one or more claims were fake. Relying on claimed roles can be dicey. The last part of your statement here is reflective of what the town did on day 2, which I recall you were unhappy with at the time. Day 3 and beyond she was fair game for one reason or another.

Rash - I think part of what Ythill is commending you for was one of your flaws this game. Props for deciding properly on DR and suspecting Ythill for most of the game - not taking anything away from that. The only issue is that the quote war got too diluted. There has to be a way to condense an argument and cut it off if it goes on too long. I try to read all posts in fair detail, but I will admit to ending up just skimming when you two were going back and forth.

Here's a situation: Suppose you're trying to push a lynch on Z when everyone else wants to look at X, or maybe Y, and Z is oppositionally related to X and Y. You're the only really pushing at Z, and Z actively attempts to deflect criticism of this sort. Sure, you can attempt to be brief, concise, and maybe even terse. However, it's also easier for Z to deflect short, weak, and substance lacking arguments.

There comes a point where trying to condense an argument leads to weakening it and leaving gaps in reasoning or points discussed.

Those points took me awhile to make, and trying to condense them for easy reading would lead to either leaving out substance

(and getting backfire for it)

or take substantially more time.

Perhaps I could have condensed my arguments, but I think doing so would have hurt my arguments more than it would have increased their readership (at least at the time I made them).

The other thing is that I leave more commentary to refer back to for later use. Either I have said more, and can be judged accordingly, or the target of my scorn has had to be more active, and can be judged accordingly.

***

All of this being said, I do try to use white space, bolding, italics, underlines, symbols, CAPITALIZATION, etc to make stronger points stand out for the skimming minded.

***

As did Ythill, at times.

[Rashiminos]

EBWOP: Here's a condensed version:

I made longer arguments because I felt my shorter ones were not strong enough and I was concerned about leaving out important details. If I had to re-explain what seems like a stretch or crap-logic later, it would have counted against me. There's also the risk of my argument not being a viewed seriously due to a lack of effort/presence.

Better 1 or better 2?

[fhqwhgads]

Wow.

Ythill, you just rocked. I almost had you pinned as scum during your argument with rash (nice being on your side of the argument this time, rash ), and then DR came with his bombshell.

This actually was my first game out of the newbie thread and boy, was I out of my depth, but I do think I did learn a lot. I got kinda frustrated on the end of day one and totally changed my style (some of you picked up on this). Then I felt a bit overwhelmed, plus work held me busy. Then, the most exciting part for me was in the whole DR vs me debate.

All in all, during that debate I was sure Ythill was town (nice one, DR) and crywolfs lynch just 'confirmed' it. I was sure bionic was scum as well, because I was pretty confident that rash was town.

Well played by scum, and crywolf, shame on you! I really started to feel sorry for you when you outed your frustrations for being picked on day in and day out! Women manipulate me so easily

[gorckat]

Oh, a thought about claimed docs:

In the Nubigena game I mentioned, I was the Mafia Doc. I claimed bad decisions in letting the claimed gunsmith die (see game for details) which partly helped us scum win.

After seeing wolf get by here, as soon as a doc claims to have made a mistake in any game I'm in, they'll almost certainly be voted by myself.

Bad docs = good lynches, I think,

[bionicchop2]

EBWOP: Here's a condensed version:

I made longer arguments because I felt my shorter ones were not strong enough and I was concerned about leaving out important details. If I had to re-explain what seems like a stretch or crap-logic later, it would have counted against me. There's also the risk of my argument not being a viewed seriously due to a lack of effort/presence.

Better 1 or better 2?

Your 2nd explanation was much clearer. I guess for me, when I see the same point rephrased multiple ways, it loses impact. I also am from the school of thought where I try to use the least words possible to make my point (doesn't always work). When the thread gets longer others are less likely to reread. I gave myself a rule because I had a tendency to over debate topics. It always personally seems like you are making things clearer, but is rarely the reality to the outside perspective. I give myself 3 "volleys" to debate one topic (yes I break this unintentionally). If somebody else hasn't seen my point by then, they won't.

None of this is to take away from your scum hunting, since you were the only person on all 3 scum. I just think when it comes to convincing others, I know many people have a lower tolerance for excessive reading than I do and even I got worn down by your debate.

[crywolf20084]

Even though it's clear in the mafia-chat, I'll explain that D4 debacle. I was checking in constantly, waiting for wolf to vote fhq so that I could hammer. I'd been rallying so hard against DR that it was too risky for me to be the third vote on fhq. If bionic checked in before wolf, it might have cost us the game.

Like I said, hindsight is a bitch. Each and EVERY time I did something, including with "protecting" Tony, which would have been an easy lynch on Fhq. And the non vote of fhq, as well as countless other things where I could've had this game won sooner.
Disclaimer: I ALWAYS hate being a doctor, because I tend to make stupid mistakes.

Wolf, your performance was truly astonishing. I don't know how you lived as long as you did, but I've got to tip my hat to you. That "annoying fly" strategy worked

very

well. I think you've been my most useful buddy ever.

Yes, well you were an effective Annoying Fly.

[Rashiminos]

Your 2nd explanation was much clearer.

For the sake of curiousity, could you describe what elements of my first explanation you found to be less clear or unnecessary?

I give myself 3 "volleys" to debate one topic (yes I break this unintentionally). If somebody else hasn't seen my point by then, they won't.

Perhaps I'm too hopeful, or perhaps I think stewing something in someone's mind might help them remember more.

I know many people have a lower tolerance for excessive reading than I do and even I got worn down by your debate.

Maybe it's just me, but I tend to think "excessive" reading is a better problem than a lack of things to read, or a lack of people keeping up with the game. Unfortunately, reality intervenes in one way or another.

[Rashiminos]

Perhaps I'm too hopeful, or perhaps I think stewing something in someone's mind might help them remember more,

EBWOP: and get the connection I was trying to express.

[bionicchop2]

Your 2nd explanation was much clearer.

For the sake of curiousity, could you describe what elements of my first explanation you found to be less clear or unnecessary?

I will do my best. Conversely, you can ask what you said in your 1st post which was not easily understood by what you said in your 2nd post.

Here's a situation: Suppose you're trying to push a lynch on Z when everyone else wants to look at X, or maybe Y, and Z is oppositionally related to X and Y. You're the only really pushing at Z, and Z actively attempts to deflect criticism of this sort. Sure, you can attempt to be brief, concise, and maybe even terse. However, it's also easier for Z to deflect short, weak, and substance lacking arguments.

There comes a point where trying to condense an argument leads to weakening it and leaving gaps in reasoning or points discussed.

Those points took me awhile to make, and trying to condense them for easy reading would lead to either leaving out substance

(and getting backfire for it)

or take substantially more time.

Take this part. The structure of your example is not exactly easy to follow. Yes, if I reread a few times, it becomes clear what you are trying to say. The problem is that I am a 30 year old who graduated 2nd in my small high school class and have 6 years of college education. This does not make me smarter than others by any means, but there are many people who may not have the same level of education as the person who is writing. You need to speak to the common masses IMO and 'dumb it down' for a lack of a better term. Now, instead of all this talk about x,y, z and oppositional relationships, you could simply state that you are nobody is looking at the person you think is scum. Your next point is that brief / concise arguments can leave gaps or be easily deflected (we can debate that). I don't have a problem with how you said it here, but I also got the same idea from your 2nd post which means it was more efficient the 2nd time you said it.

I give myself 3 "volleys" to debate one topic (yes I break this unintentionally). If somebody else hasn't seen my point by then, they won't.

Perhaps I'm too hopeful, or perhaps I think stewing something in someone's mind might help them remember more.

Part of my issue may be my natural distrust for repetition since a scum strategy commonly used is argument ad nauseum (I would have to double check my fallacy reference, but not feeling ambitious enough). The whole concept of beating a thought into someone's head until they take it as truth.

I know many people have a lower tolerance for excessive reading than I do and even I got worn down by your debate.

Maybe it's just me, but I tend to think "excessive" reading is a better problem than a lack of things to read, or a lack of people keeping up with the game. Unfortunately, reality intervenes in one way or another.

I agree, but I think there is a balance to be had.

Again, none of this is to knock your play. Your posts were constructed well and quotes are helpful. My main point is that if I felt it got a little tedious to read, it should be considered, because I do feel like I try to read everything in detail and I don't fall behind too much in threads.

===============

Now, to side debate, I feel like shorter arguments are harder to combat. I think we may have a little disconnect on what I mean by shorter (since you mentioned brief and terse). I don't really feel the length of any single post was an issue.

I think with a drawn out debate (more than 3 "volleys") repetition naturally occurs. The problem with repetition is it creates opportunities for wording which can be twisted as contradictory (that's not what you said here!). Or you may even say something that wasn't exactly what you meant to say. It becomes easier for scum to derail a debate into minor points when the original point gets diluted.

===============

Side topic #2 - do you think there are better ways to engage others when a 2-person debate is occurring? This just popped into my head and maybe we all suffer from this. When you debate with a person, it is hard for others to get involved. Not to focus on your debate with Ythill, but it can be an example since we all end up in debates eventually. At no point did I feel like I was a part of that debate or knew how I fit in. I was an observer to your discussion. Do you think players need to realize this and address the others in the game to involve them? Maybe asking others why they still feel their vote is better placed on someone else than on the person you are debating with? Or is this the sole responsibility of the 'others'?

[Ythill]

Maybe asking others why they still feel their vote is better placed on someone else than on the person you are debating with?

It can be a valuable tool. I often invite others to enjoin when I'm town. For example, in another (finished) game we had a claimed doc who I at first suspected but then started to second-guess myself. He was angry and not making much sense, so I invited others to defend him. Their arguments changed my mind about his alignment.

In my first game as scum, one player who ironically thought I was town asked me if I thought my extra-helpful playstyle (PbPAs, long debates, and "thinking out-loud") would get me into trouble as scum. I find that the opposite is true. A lot of players skim through long posts or zone out while reading them, only paying close attention to the conclusions. I find that people often believe my conclusions are sincere because it seems like I have a lot of thought behind them.

Rash caught a lot of my crap-logic filler, but most people don't.

The other side of this is that I've had some good fortune convincing townies to vote with me when I'm town, and I've seen veteran players do the same thing (vollkan, Adel, and MoS are good exapmles). So I don't think that concise always means better. Both styles can be done wrong (compare TSQ to Lowell) but both can be done right as well.

[PokerFace]

Masons can be confirmed or unconfirmed. But making them unconfirmed kinda takes away from the point of calling them mason's in the first place. So a different name for the unconfirmed ones came about.

Near bottom here:
http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php?title=Mason

This game had a neighbor that recruited his buddy therefore gaining another person to talk to but not gaining confirmation knowledge. The recruiter still had to find out his buddies alignments.

I liked the recruiting twist and how it messed with the tracker. What did others think of it? Did the role 'itself' too easily confuse players about its alignment not being definate? No one confused it with Friendly neighbor did they?

http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php ... y_Neighbor

[Oman]

Let me read over roles etc. Any questions shoot them my way.