Mini 728: Ye Olde Tymes Mafia: GAME OVER

[UltimaAvalon]

I don't have a case on Yos, just a gut feeling.

Aww c'mon, you've been here since 2004, that's newbspeak.

Happy where my vote is

The one time I forget to hit the preview button.....

[Occam]

Care to elaborate? Maybe I'm missing something but somehow that doesn't make sense to me as a reason...

@ Fonz - That's nice and all, that your gut has become more reliable to you over time - but why should anyone else trust it? That doesn't work as a valid reason or point of evidence for me.

[vollkan]

I don't have a case on Yos, just a gut feeling. It's just that he's done a couple of things that felt odd to me - the Fritz thing was the more minor of the two (the other being the 4-day speculation, which I'm still uneasy about but am not quite sure why), but one that at least merited explanation. Nothing he said was invalid, it just seemed strange to me for him to take a Fritz comment like that seriously - and sometimes being overly literal and clinical in approaching a game can be a sign of deliberate detachment. Of course, it could simply be that he approaches Fritz differently from how I do.

The four day thing is a reasonable mistake. I don't think it makes Yos more likely to be scum.

I agree that an overly-clinical approach can be scummy, but I also think the context in which Yos addressed Fritz is very important. Fritz made a decent argument for a quicklynch, but based on a bad presumption. It was a serious strategic suggestion in light of that fact.

[Raging Rabbit]

I agree with vollk here. I have... not much else to say.

[The Fonz]

@ Fonz - That's nice and all, that your gut has become more reliable to you over time - but why should anyone else trust it? That doesn't work as a valid reason or point of evidence for me.

#

You are of course, correct that one player's gut isn't likely to convince another. Doesn't mean it's an invalid basis for a vote.

[Occam]

You are of course, correct that one player's gut isn't likely to convince another. Doesn't mean it's an invalid basis for a vote.

Right - so why should it count as validation for a vote? Why say that in-thread, where it's clearly not convincing evidence that your vote is OK? That's part of the reason to give reasons for votes, isn't it? To demonstrate that it's a justified vote? And to convince others that the person your voting for deserves their votes, too? Because you want scum lynched?

[The Fonz]

Why shouldn't it? If you've got a strong gut feeling, and it's the best lead you have to go on, it's absurd to think you wouldn't use it as the basis for a vote. Why say it in thread? Why wouldn't you be honest about what the reason for your vote is?

Riddle me this... which is more likely to end up with dead scum?

1. A nice, neatly-reasoned case against someone you don't actually think is scum.
2. A gut vote on someone who definitely feels like scum to you, but you're not yet able to articulate fully why you feel that way.

The very act of voting draws people's attention. A vote is not worthless just because it doesn't come with a nice, ribbon-tied argument behind it.

[Occam]

Yeah, but an experienced player with a strong gut feeling can sway newer players to vote with them on almost no basis at all. I think it's kind of an abuse of authority and experience, to be honest. It's a smart move for scum - though I don't suspect Seol in particular of being scum - but I still have a problem with it.

[The Fonz]

You see, that's an excellent example. That last post feels scummy as F*** to me, but I can't right now articulate exactly why. Maybe, in part, it's because i don't see scum voting people on 'gut' any more than town do. Maybe it's because of your use of language like 'abuse of authority' to describe something that's perfectly normal scumhunting practice.

[Occam]

I don't consider it a normal or good scumhunting practice. Sorry if that offends you.

[Yosarian2]

You don't consider what normal? Voting someone based on a gut feeling? There's nothing wrong with doing that.

[Occam]

Riddle me this... which is more likely to end up with dead scum?

1. A nice, neatly-reasoned case against someone you don't actually think is scum.
2. A gut vote on someone who definitely feels like scum to you, but you're not yet able to articulate fully why you feel that way.

What about all the other options? Like a poorly reasoned case against someone you think is scum (which I believe listing a "gut feeling" as your primary reason is)? OR even a nice, neatly-reasoned case against someone you DO think is scum? Why would you bother making a case on someone you DON'T think is scum?

I'm not arguing that voting for someone isn't an OK thing to do - it happens all the time. I AM saying that listing "gut feeling" as your primary reason for a vote isn't OK because it doesn't help the town, for the reasons I cited.

But this is quickly becoming an "I'm right, you're wrong" theory discussion that belongs elsewhere - especially because I don't think Seol is scummy for it. I just don't find it a good practice, especially for an experienced player.

On the fritz issue - I haven't played enough with fritz to understand his meta. I don't think meta applies as much to a game where we don't know what's going on, though. I don't find his proposition overly scummy, but I do think that suggestion should have waited until it happened again - which, luckily, it didn't.

I want to get some real discussion going, and I generally think this is a good thing to do on day one: I'm a miller.

[The Fonz]

Riddle me this... which is more likely to end up with dead scum?

1. A nice, neatly-reasoned case against someone you don't actually think is scum.
2. A gut vote on someone who definitely feels like scum to you, but you're not yet able to articulate fully why you feel that way.

What about all the other options? Like a poorly reasoned case against someone you think is scum (which I believe listing a "gut feeling" as your primary reason is)?

I disagree. A 'poorly reasoned' case for me is one based on craplogic- giving reasons, that don't actually add up in the way you say you do. They're a scumtell. If you suspect someone, but don't have a good argument you can articulate, you absolutely should not invent a bad one.

OR even a nice, neatly-reasoned case against someone you DO think is scum?

Obviously, that's the ideal, but it's not always possible. The case I gave you is this: someone's giving you strong scum vibes, but you can't pin down exactly why. Nonetheless, he's your top suspect. You can either a) lie about the basis of your suspicions b) vote him and explain it's a gut thing or c) vote someone else, who you don't actually suspect as much, but for whom you can articulate a reason why their play might be seen as scummy. That lists covers all the options.

Why would you bother making a case on someone you DON'T think is scum?

The logical extension of your argument, if your best indicator of someone else being scum is a gut feeling, but it isn't acceptable to vote on gut feelings, then you have to make a case against someone who you don't actually think is as likely to be scum. Which, obviously, in my eyes is scummy, and therefore your position is scummy.

I'm not arguing that voting for someone isn't an OK thing to do - it happens all the time. I AM saying that listing "gut feeling" as your primary reason for a vote isn't OK because it doesn't help the town, for the reasons I cited.

And I'm arguing that if you genuinely do have a gut feeling, and that's your strongest suspicion, you should go with it, and be honest about it, and then try to work out why it is you feel that way later.

But this is quickly becoming an "I'm right, you're wrong" theory discussion that belongs elsewhere - especially because I don't think Seol is scummy for it.

But I DO think it's scummy and underhanded of you to take this position. If you didn't think it scummy, why did you bring it up in the first place?
I just don't find it a good practice, especially for an experienced player.

I want to get some real discussion going, and I generally think this is a good thing to do on day one: I'm a miller.

Vote: Occam

Lynch all claimed millers.

[Occam]

But I DO think it's scummy and underhanded of you to take this position. If you didn't think it scummy, why did you bring it up in the first place?

Hmm. That's weird. I didn't know disagreeing on theory made scum.

And do you even remember how I brought it up at this point? Here:

Aww c'mon, you've been here since 2004, that's newbspeak.

Oh that's right, it was a joke! Ho ho ho!

I think fonz is looking for a reason to vote someone - and finding a bad one. I'm not sure why. I have not played with him before so I'm not sure if he's the type that gets into theory discussions, gets mad, and votes people, so if someone would help me out on that issue, I'd appreciate it.

I'm going to allow you to be right in thinking that you're right - because I still think this is a theory discussion which doesn't apply.

Lynch all claimed millers.

Policy lynches R bad.

[The Fonz]

But I DO think it's scummy and underhanded of you to take this position. If you didn't think it scummy, why did you bring it up in the first place?

Hmm. That's weird. I didn't know disagreeing on theory made scum.

It doesn't. But attacking someone else, over something that isn't scummy, is scummy.

Lynch all claimed millers.

Policy lynches R bad.

HELL NO. The converse of this is probably my strongest held belief regarding mafia.

Why lynching claimed millers specifically is necessary:

If millers were not policy-lynched, it becomes too good of a claim for scum. They essentially get immunity from being busted by a cop. Therefore, millers should not claim, and claimed millers should be lynched. It's a policy lynch because it's not based on the likelihood of the individual miller claimant being scum- but because it hurts towns, in general, to allow miller to become an acceptable claim.

[Note: Millers claiming in massclaim, or after a cop has died, is a bit different.]

[Occam]

It doesn't. But attacking someone else, over something that isn't scummy, is scummy.

Right, but that wasn't an "attack", unless you count jokes as an attack. If anything it was an insult, but I didn't even mean it that way, so, no.

Why lynching claimed millers specifically is necessary:

If millers were not policy-lynched, it becomes too good of a claim for scum. They essentially get immunity from being busted by a cop. Therefore, millers should not claim, and claimed millers should be lynched. It's a policy lynch because it's not based on the likelihood of the individual miller claimant being scum- but because it hurts towns, in general, to allow miller to become an acceptable claim.

I agree with this, but I also think that millers can be useful, and that they should always claim day 1. I think lynching the miller on day 2 is better than lynching the miller on day 1, though. It's a waste of a lynch because, by the odds, town is lynched more often than scum on day 1 - and lynching the miller on day 1 throws a whole bunch of shit into the fan. All the interactions on day one become less useful and potentially even confusing to the town when someone flips miller on a day one lynch. I will turn up guilty - then you'll look at all the people who interacted with me. As a miller, though, I'll potentially be implicating people who shouldn't be implicated. In my view that invalidates productiveness. And I know it's day 2 - but I'm calling this day one, because yesterday was almost entirely useless and ended without a lynch, so for all intents and purposes this is day one.

[Occam]

Also I guess I should mention that I didn't get a name, since both Rishi and Sir T had names. I'm a nameless miller, is what it says.

[forbiddanlight]

Lynch all claimed millers.

Wait...what the hell kinda policy is this? That's RIDICULOUS! Judge him on his ACTIONS, not his claimed role!

Vote The Fonz

I want to get some real discussion going, and I generally think this is a good thing to do on day one: I'm a miller.

So, why wasn't this in your first post though?

If millers were not policy-lynched, it becomes too good of a claim for scum. They essentially get immunity from being busted by a cop. Therefore, millers should not claim, and claimed millers should be lynched. It's a policy lynch because it's not based on the likelihood of the individual miller claimant being scum- but because it hurts towns, in general, to allow miller to become an acceptable claim.

Uh...no, not really. If you rely on the cop that much to win the game for you, you aren't playing mafia anyway. Honestly, I HATE policy lynches. They are the penultimate in "I'm going to turn my brain off" lynches.


Honestly, The Fonz just jumped up about a million on my scumdar with that line of crap. I don't care WHAT his meta is for it, that's just plain ridiculous.

[Occam]

So, why wasn't this in your first post though?

Because then that's ALL discussion is about. I wasn't able to post until 60 posts into the game, just after MM had figured out he wasn't playing. I said:

Now I'm just confused about where to start... everything for the past three pages has been tossed out the window with the monkey...

...and I didn't think "I'm a miller" was a good place to start. I think it's a good way to get something back on track, but not a good starting point. And that's really what it would have been, a starting point - because we were back to ground zero after monkey got nuked.

[Raging Rabbit]

Wait, so you're a

death

miller? I dunno about lynching all millers, but we should definitely lynch anyone who claims he'll turn scum. The risk factor's just too high, we'll have to lynch him at some point and imo the sooner the better.

Vote Occam

.


Note: mandatory theory discussions on self voting and gut are now officially over. Time to start actually playing.

[Occam]

Wait, so you're a death miller?

Actually, that's a good point. I forgot that millers don't show up as scum after death. So what I said up there doesn't count, but I still disagree with policy lynches.

[forbiddanlight]

Wait, so you're a death miller? I dunno about lynching all millers, but we should definitely lynch anyone who claims he'll turn scum. The risk factor's just too high, we'll have to lynch him at some point and imo the sooner the better.

Remind me to discuss this when a game is over. But suffice it to say I heartily disagree, and that I would prefer it if we actually judged people by their actions rather then the role they claim.

Anyway, Occam, doesn't your role PM describe what a miller does to you? Or does it just say "You're a miller, have fun?"

[Occam]

Or does it just say "You're a miller, have fun?"

Basically this, it says I'm a nameless miller.

[forbiddanlight]

Basically this, it says I'm a nameless miller.

Hrn...Yeah, ok, not believing it. Mod meta here, but I'm pretty sure Shea knows how to construct a role PM well enough so that no matter WHAT group you have playing, all roles are fully described in the role PM. Especially since the townie PM on the front page is a good description of a vanilla townie.

Unvote, Vote Occam

.

FoS Fonz

for that horrible policy lynch idea.

[Occam]

Yeah, this one is quite like the one on the front page, but it says I'm a nameless miller who wants to be left alone, and appears shady though he's well-intentioned. I'm coming dangerously close to quoting the pm here so I think that's about all I should say. It doesn't specify anything about cop investigations or reveals on death, but I will ask the mod to make sure.