Mini 754 - Frogs Mafia Game, Set and Match.

[Citizen Karne]

My impression of pbpa is that you are looking for the person you are doing them on to be scum, and that should be taken into account. I was very nitpicky.

MBF, what you said is nice, but I'd still like a claim.

Wrong.

If you go into a PBPA with a preconceived notion of that persons alignment, then you defeat the purpose of the PBPA, and basically reduce it to the definition of confirmation bias. If you enter a PBPA thinking that a player is scum, than you will be likely to upplay anything that makes them look scummy, and downplay anything that makes them look towny, and vice versa. A PBPA should be a tool to figure out how you feel about a player, not a method of attack.

Again, we will agree to disagree. I've always used them to make cases, not get a feel for the player. If I'm trying to get a feel for someone, sure I'll analyze all their posts, but I won't post anything unless I find something noteworthy. If I think someone to be scum, then I'll provide my thoughts (which believe them to be scum) on every single post they have made. The way I go about doing a pbpa defeats the purpose of what you use them for, but not what

I

use them for.

[Gorrad]

Sorry, y'all, I haven't meant to lurk. It just kinda happened.

Here's the skinny: I'm still all in favor of an Izzy lynch, and I still think MBF is pretty protown. The reason I haven't been commenting on those points made against him is because there is, to an extent, some truth to them and I wanted to see his responses.

They're what I'd expect from him as town. Admitting to tunnelvision and playing by gut, for a player of MBF's caliber...frankly, as scum, I'd expect him to play better. For me, at least, disinterest is a town-tell. Scum have a harder job, they have more at stake in the day phase, so they post more. Power-roles have this too to an extent. When I'm a vanilla townie, I'm usually significantly less into a game than when I'm scum, and I tend to apply that to others as well.

[dahill1]

Well applying your own meta to others obviously won't work
For example, I actually prefer being vanilla rather than scum

[Gorrad]

Well applying your own meta to others obviously won't work
For example, I actually prefer being vanilla rather than scum

Nonetheless, it's my bias.

[Thestatusquo]

My impression of pbpa is that you are looking for the person you are doing them on to be scum, and that should be taken into account. I was very nitpicky.

MBF, what you said is nice, but I'd still like a claim.

Wrong.

If you go into a PBPA with a preconceived notion of that persons alignment, then you defeat the purpose of the PBPA, and basically reduce it to the definition of confirmation bias. If you enter a PBPA thinking that a player is scum, than you will be likely to upplay anything that makes them look scummy, and downplay anything that makes them look towny, and vice versa. A PBPA should be a tool to figure out how you feel about a player, not a method of attack.

Again, we will agree to disagree. I've always used them to make cases, not get a feel for the player. If I'm trying to get a feel for someone, sure I'll analyze all their posts, but I won't post anything unless I find something noteworthy. If I think someone to be scum, then I'll provide my thoughts (which believe them to be scum) on every single post they have made. The way I go about doing a pbpa defeats the purpose of what you use them for, but not what

I

use them for.

So did you miss my arguments for WHY Pbpa's are a bad tool to use cases? You completely strawmanned me. My argument wasn't anything close to as retarded as "lol, you use them for something other than you say you have." My argument was that PBPAs are inherently ineffective and useless for making cases. This is not a "agree to disagree" situation. I made an argument for why your case making method is de facto unreliable, and you essentially said "Meh, whatevs." This is not an argument about what you or I DO use PBPAs for, but an argument about what they OUGHT to be used for. Notice the difference between a prescriptive and a descriptive statement there.

Your case is invalid until you defeat my arguments.

[Citizen Karne]

Sorry, y'all, I haven't meant to lurk. It just kinda happened.

Here's the skinny: I'm still all in favor of an Izzy lynch, and I still think MBF is pretty protown. The reason I haven't been commenting on those points made against him is because there is, to an extent, some truth to them and I wanted to see his responses.

They're what I'd expect from him as town. Admitting to tunnelvision and playing by gut, for a player of MBF's caliber...frankly, as scum, I'd expect him to play better. For me, at least, disinterest is a town-tell. Scum have a harder job, they have more at stake in the day phase, so they post more. Power-roles have this too to an extent. When I'm a vanilla townie, I'm usually significantly less into a game than when I'm scum, and I tend to apply that to others as well.

This is almost entirely composed of WIFOM.

[Citizen Karne]

My impression of pbpa is that you are looking for the person you are doing them on to be scum, and that should be taken into account. I was very nitpicky.

MBF, what you said is nice, but I'd still like a claim.

Wrong.

If you go into a PBPA with a preconceived notion of that persons alignment, then you defeat the purpose of the PBPA, and basically reduce it to the definition of confirmation bias. If you enter a PBPA thinking that a player is scum, than you will be likely to upplay anything that makes them look scummy, and downplay anything that makes them look towny, and vice versa. A PBPA should be a tool to figure out how you feel about a player, not a method of attack.

Again, we will agree to disagree. I've always used them to make cases, not get a feel for the player. If I'm trying to get a feel for someone, sure I'll analyze all their posts, but I won't post anything unless I find something noteworthy. If I think someone to be scum, then I'll provide my thoughts (which believe them to be scum) on every single post they have made. The way I go about doing a pbpa defeats the purpose of what you use them for, but not what

I

use them for.

So did you miss my arguments for WHY Pbpa's are a bad tool to use cases? You completely strawmanned me. My argument wasn't anything close to as retarded as "lol, you use them for something other than you say you have." My argument was that PBPAs are inherently ineffective and useless for making cases. This is not a "agree to disagree" situation. I made an argument for why your case making method is de facto unreliable, and you essentially said "Meh, whatevs." This is not an argument about what you or I DO use PBPAs for, but an argument about what they OUGHT to be used for. Notice the difference between a prescriptive and a descriptive statement there.

Your case is invalid until you defeat my arguments.

I don't think you fully understand me. I

know

there is a confirmation bias present. When you are arguing against anyone in any form, there is going to be a confirmation bias present, because you think you're right. If one didn't look at people expecting to find scum, one would wind up rarely finding anything. I do look at people neutrally to begin with, but once I gain suspicion of them, I start to look at them as scum, and vice versa. Looking at them as scum helps find more things to support the suspicion. It's exactly like forming a conspiracy theory, and it has to be, because in the game of mafia the whole point is that

there is a conspiracy afoot

. And when I'm making a case against someone, I'm not going to go into their townie points (which everyone invariably has), and I

am

going to play up their scumminess in order to help convince others of my views. A pbpa is one method I use of doing just that. So it

is

a case of agree to disagree, because I would use a pbpa as a form of attack (and therefore experience conformation bias during its usage) while you would use it as purely a form of analysis (and therefore not experience confirmation bias during its usage).

[Thestatusquo]

Listen, because I think you're just not getting this, I'm going to lay it out in easy steps for you.

1) The purpose of making cases is to convince other people, not for your own edification.
2) Because this is true, you want to maximize the accountability of the case, in order for other players to check up on it and fact check it for accuracy.
3) PBPA DE FACTO make it harder to check up on the accuracy of the case, because of the need for players to check up on EVERY SINGLE POST THE PLAYER HAS MADE in order to check for your bias.
4) Comparatively, as opposed to other methods of presenting cases, for instance making points, and then citing examples of those points for other players to fact check, PBPAs are not transparent at all, because they ask us to rely on your own CONFIRMATION BIAS rather than looking at the case objectively and making up our minds.
5) Players are not going to trust you on face, and generally don't even read PBPAs from my experience.
6) Therefor, PBPA are not effective ways of making a case.


I tend to get very suspicious of players making PBPAs because they're very good at looking impressive, without serving a humungous amount of game function. Basically, they're giving the appearance of scumhunting without actually doing so.

[mikeburnfire]

I have read it. The whole thing about admitting to screw up, claiming to do scummy actions, and the whole thing of promising to try harder is all appeal to emotion.

There's also the part where, you know, I EXPLAIN THE REASONING BEHIND ALL OF MY ACTIONS.

They're what I'd expect from him as town. Admitting to tunnelvision and playing by gut, for a player of MBF's caliber...frankly, as scum, I'd expect him to play better. For me, at least, disinterest is a town-tell. Scum have a harder job, they have more at stake in the day phase, so they post more. Power-roles have this too to an extent. When I'm a vanilla townie, I'm usually significantly less into a game than when I'm scum, and I tend to apply that to others as well.

Gorrad won so friggin hard just now. Seriously. He hit the nail right on the head. I'm a townie.

Citizen Karne, TSQ is right about your pbpa. It's unbelievably slanted against me. You went through all my posts, tried to find everything that could be construed as suspicious, and put it all together as evidence that I'm scum. It's tunnelvisioning, and it's not good. You're just doing what I've been doing. It's very hypocritical. Like so:

Gorrad used a self-meta. scot meta'd cry. Those are tow VERY different things. Self-metas are not acceptable, while independent metas are. If you say you cannot see the the difference between these, you are either lying or a bad player.

They're what I'd expect from him as town. Frankly, as scum, I'd expect him to play better

This is almost entirely composed of WIFOM.

See how you contradict yourself? You say that metas on other people are okay, but metas are me are WIFOM.

TSQ, stop bickering with Citizen Karne and GIVE ME A FUCKING OPINION.

[Thestatusquo]

Citizen Karne, TSQ is right about your pbpa. It's unbelievably slanted against me. You went through all my posts, tried to find everything that could be construed as suspicious, and put it all together as evidence that I'm scum. It's tunnelvisioning, and it's not good. You're just doing what I've been doing. It's very hypocritical. Like so:

Watch yourself, Dr. Straw. I didn't make any comments on whether or not the case was slanted. In fact, I didn't even read it for the exact reason I stated. I do not have the time to go through every single one of MBFs posts, and look for your bias in your description of them. His case could be completely even handed for all I know, my point was that its not something which I see as actionable, Not that its biased or incorrect. Don't attribute a position to me that isn't mine.

I still think Izzy is the lynch for today, and I don't like how this MBF thing has developed, sort of out of left field.

[Shanba]

Vote Count:

5: mikeburnfire

(MacLock, ckd, dahill1, Citizen karne, Izzy)

2: Dizzyizzyb13

(Gorrad, TSQ)

2: scotmany

(Raging Rabbit, mbf)

1: Gorrad

(scotmany)
Not Voting:

none

6 to lynch. Checking to see if prods necessary now.

Prodding Raging Rabbit.

fixed.

[mikeburnfire]

I hate how everybody who doesn't think I'm scum is just retreating quietly and letting me get lynched.

[Gorrad]

I've given my input on the situation. You're capable of fighting your own battles.

[mikeburnfire]

Yeah, once I forced you to. But you and TSQ, people who have once said that they thought I was town, almost let me die without saying a damn thing.

[Thestatusquo]

I don't think you're not scum, again, don't put words in my mouth. I don't necessarily like how your wagon has sprung up, but that's quite a few kippers short of a dozen in terms of thinking you're town.

To the extent that I believe Izzy is MORE likely to be scum than you are, I attacked her several times. The response I've gotten from the rest of the town is basically "meh, whatevs." And to the extent that I think Karne's case is defacto bull shit, I have attacked it, but I am certainly not getting more vehement without a distinct pro town read on you that I do not have.

[dahill1]

i was on board for an izzy lynch until MBF posted that ridiculous case and voted for her, and he hasn't been much better since then.

[Citizen Karne]

Listen, because I think you're just not getting this, I'm going to lay it out in easy steps for you.

1) The purpose of making cases is to convince other people, not for your own edification.
2) Because this is true, you want to maximize the accountability of the case, in order for other players to check up on it and fact check it for accuracy.
3) PBPA DE FACTO make it harder to check up on the accuracy of the case, because of the need for players to check up on EVERY SINGLE POST THE PLAYER HAS MADE in order to check for your bias.
4) Comparatively, as opposed to other methods of presenting cases, for instance making points, and then citing examples of those points for other players to fact check, PBPAs are not transparent at all, because they ask us to rely on your own CONFIRMATION BIAS rather than looking at the case objectively and making up our minds.
5) Players are not going to trust you on face, and generally don't even read PBPAs from my experience.
6) Therefor, PBPA are not effective ways of making a case.


I tend to get very suspicious of players making PBPAs because they're very good at looking impressive, without serving a humungous amount of game function. Basically, they're giving the appearance of scumhunting without actually doing so.

Look just because the case may have confirmation bias doesn't mean the

facts

are wrong. It just means I've inserted my opinion into it. You are saying that because I'm being opinionated, you can't trust my case? Come on, TSQ. The case is based almost entirely on fact with the major exception being my speculation as to the possible scumteam of Izzy, Gorrad, and MBF.

Point taken about the inconvenience to other players, however. If you want I can quote it and insert links to his posts.

[Raging Rabbit]

This is a placeholder, just so you'll know I'm still around. I started reading the stuff I still have to catch up on and will post shortly.

[mikeburnfire]

I was just going to come in here and post a one line "hurry up and lynch me" post, but I felt like being awesome instead.

In response to CK's biased pbpa of me, I will now defend myself in a similar fashion.
0. Joke post
1. Joke post
2. Defended TSQ, commenting on things
3. Got negative vibes from Crywolf
4. Defended Hatorade (now confirmed town) from TSQ's attacks.
5. Got negative vibes from kloud
6. Joke Post
7. Getting bored, I ask TSQ his opinion.
8. I acknowledge being replaced
9. Noticing that Crywolf is at 5 votes, I ask for a flavor claim, as it is less dangerous than a role claim
10. I unvote to be safe
11. I grill scot for his sudden defense of Crywolf and attack of Gorrad
12. Upon Cry claiming pro-town non-frog, I unvote, give her a pass, then move on to dahill
13. I continue to grill dahill, and get pissed at lurkers
14. I suspect dahill for flavor-related reasons
15. I try to explain my flavor-related suspicions on dahill
16. I defend cry based on flavor
17. I defend cry based on flavor
18. I vote MacLock for trying to out the other mason (who is now confirmed town)
19. Argue with MacLock that the other mason should not come forward.
20. Argue with MacLock that the other mason should not come forward.
21. Argue with MacLock more.
22. Sarcastic remark
23. Argue with MacLock about miscontextualizing his post or some shit.
24. Ask for Gorrad's opinion, vote no lynch to get some discussion going
25. Give soft comments on Archon and Karne
26. Notify Crywolf that she is slowly outing her partner
27. Joke post
28. Vote Gorrad for active lurking
29. unvote Gorrad once he explains himself. vote cry for suspicious behavior which I had tried to ignore, proxy my vote to Gorrad (because the Crywolf wagon looked inevitable, and I wanted to see if he'd try anything funny)
30. Explain that it's possible that both neighbors could be innocent, so I do not want the other neighbor outed.
***ARCHON LYNCH***
31. Vote crywolf's replacement Izzy.
32. Joke post
33. Explain my vote on Izzy, but admit that the reasoning is meta and sketchy.
34. "Ducks eat frogs". Mainly, I thought Izzy was scum. And I began to think "surely we can't possibly have TWO pro-town ducks. One of them must be scum"
35. Continue to push cry's lynch with some pretty good logic, actually.
36. Try to bring up my case on scotmany. For the next couple of posts, I'll point out his suspicious behavior, for which he'll be able to easily explain himself.
37. I realize that all my flavor-based arguments were dumb.
38. I try to defend the meta-based arguments on Izzy.
39. I try to defend arguments on Izzy. Some meta-based. Some evidence-based.
40. Arguing with several people
41. vote scotmany, something I either forgot to do at the time, or because I still wanted IZzy dead. I can't remember.
42. Get frustrated.
43. Present a huge case against scotmany. Now, some of the stuff I said earlier was easily explained away, but this stuff has yet to be answered for I believe.
44. Mod correction
45->Now. Self-defense.

Huh. Now that I take a step back, I haven't been playing so badly afterall. A lot of my posts are very logical, and aside from a few that are tunnel-vision and misinterpretations, I've made a lot of good points. Why the hell am I so apologetic about this?

In the beginning I tried to use flavor to find scum. In hindsight I can see that it was a futile endeavor, but at the time it was the appropriate action to take. It's better than the random votes, active lurking, and lurking accusations that every other person was doing. Flavor isn't always useless. In fact, I remember a Futurama-themed game that I broke open based on flavor (link on request).

In regards to Izzy, I still think that being a neighbor is a point against him, but not as much as Crywolf's sucpicious behavior, as I pointed out here. I would also like it noted that while MacLock and Gorrad were pushing for the second mason to out themselves, I was pushing AGAINST it.

In regards to scotmany, I was initially suspicious that he wanted Gorrad to out the second mason, then vote him when he did. Scotmany has clarified himself on that, and it was something that I had misinterpreted. However, I later pointed out a LOT of suspicious behavior on your part in my post 43. All of the stuff in this post is still a valid argument against you, and it's a shame that everybody ignored it.

In regards to dahill, you say that you were "on board for an izzy lynch until MBF posted that ridiculous case and voted for her, and he hasn't been much better since then." Do you really believe that? First of all you AGREED with half of the "ridiculous case" in question. Another part was flavor-related that I have since retracted. The other was in regards to the neighbor thing, which I still think is important, even though others disagree. Also, do you really think I "haven't been much better since"? Seriously? It's a bit soul-crushing that I would start putting lots of effort into the game, and you act like it's no big deal.

In regards to Gorrad, you are a good player. You have made many points this game that I agree with. But you were actively lurking for 90% of Day 1. I tried to ignore this because many great players don't need to say much to be effective scumhunters (The Fonz comes to mind). But it's continued through Day 2 and you're not being as helpful as I would have liked. Also, you've been focused on mostly Izzy, with a little of suspicioun thrown towards Karne and Archon. That's about it. I just about died back there and you gave no opinion on it until I called you out on it. I actually had to single you out.
+ + Now, you're still good at this game. I can tell because you essentially figured out my role just by reading me. And you're really the only person who defended me in the slightest way. But none of this tell me your alignment one way or the other. Maybe you're town, and the only person who's isn't so quick to string me up. But you could also be scum who saw I was about to die, and defended me to score a few more points for yourself. Maybe you've been speculating about my role because you're looking for power roles to kill. I don't know. And I won't know unless you start interacting more.

In regards to CK and CKD, you two mesh together in my mind. I have a lot of trouble not confusing the two of you. Regardless, none of you stand out much. Been playing the game, but also keeping out of trouble. That pbpa from CK was pretty biased, but doesn't make you scum necessarily. Could just be misguided town.

Thestatusquo, you disappeared for a month , so I have little read on you. However, I can tell you play with your cards close to you, very diligently like a scum might. Also, getting an specific opinion out of you is very frustrating. I think you are more likely to be scum than Gorrad.

MacavityLock has been flying under the radar for awhile now. I don't have much. His vote on me from Day 1 looks more OMGUS than my vote on scot did, though that's not really important. Certainly likes taking the easy lynch though. His initial vote on dahill was stupid, though.

No read on the Rabbit. Only about 20 posts, and half of them are placeholders. You need to post more.

As it stands, I'm about to die. If that's the case, then so be it, but if I'm dead tomorrow, you will most likely have two more dead pro-town roles. Then everybody will go back to their original suspicions. Half the town will suspect Gorrad. The other half will suspect Izzy. It's practically a stalemate. HOWEVER!...

something that I noticed is that almost ALL of you who suspect Gorrad think "I bet MBF's scum with Gorrad". Likewise for those of you who suspect Izzy. Wouldn't it be better to lynch one of them, rather than me? If I'm dead, then regardless of my alignment, you'll be trying to decide between killing Gorrad or Izzy, and if I'm a dead townie and another townie dies, then this decision could be the one that dictates whether or not the town wins. If I'm scum, you haven't made hardly any progress by killing me (because you're still split into factions). If I'm town, then not only are you undecided, but you've also put yourself in lynch-or-lose position tomorrow.

If you're town, I hope this post helps us catch scum. If you're scum, I hope I just screwed up your plans by not going down without a fight.

Oh, also..

MIKEBURNFIRE IS BACK BITCHES!!

[scotmany12]

MBF, if you are talking about the time when I didn't give suspicions when RR asked me, it's because I hadn't had any at the point. I already said this. I didn't originally say that because I wanted to know why RR just asked me that.

something that I noticed is that almost ALL of you who suspect Gorrad think "I bet MBF's scum with Gorrad". Likewise for those of you who suspect Izzy. Wouldn't it be better to lynch one of them, rather than me? If I'm dead, then regardless of my alignment, you'll be trying to decide between killing Gorrad or Izzy, and if I'm a dead townie and another townie dies, then this decision could be the one that dictates whether or not the town wins. If I'm scum, you haven't made hardly any progress by killing me (because you're still split into factions). If I'm town, then not only are you undecided, but you've also put yourself in lynch-or-lose position tomorrow.

This is just awful. If you are scum, then we have made tons of progress. We lynched scum. You acting like we won't gain anything by lynched you is ludicrous. This is not something a town would post, because you are basically fucking with the town as well as the scum. Also, how would you know we would be in lylo? For us to be in lylo tomorrow following a mislynch, there would have to be four scum, something unlikely in a 12 player game.

[MacavityLock]

Also, how would you know we would be in lylo? For us to be in lylo tomorrow following a mislynch, there would have to be four scum, something unlikely in a 12 player game.

For the record, a mislynch today almost certainly does mean LYLO tomorrow given 3 scum, unless I'm miscounting. Mislynch today + townie death tonight = 3 scum + 5 townies. Another mislynch + townie death would get us to 3 v 3, or game over.

Another note: If there is a single 4-scum team, we're in LYLO right now. I doubt this.

[scotmany12]

Also, how would you know we would be in lylo? For us to be in lylo tomorrow following a mislynch, there would have to be four scum, something unlikely in a 12 player game.

For the record, a mislynch today almost certainly does mean LYLO tomorrow given 3 scum, unless I'm miscounting. Mislynch today + townie death tonight = 3 scum + 5 townies. Another mislynch + townie death would get us to 3 v 3, or game over.

Another note: If there is a single 4-scum team, we're in LYLO right now. I doubt this.

Ok, fair enough. I did the math wrong.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

I'm very happy with an MBF lynch right now. Somebody hammer him so we can get to working on Gorrad.

[mikeburnfire]

This is just awful. If you are scum, then we have made tons of progress. We lynched scum. You acting like we won't gain anything by lynched you is ludicrous.

AGAIN, when I'm dead, the town will still be split over who to kill next. If I'm scum, that'd be okay because you'd have some leeway. If I'm town (which I am), you're in Lynch or Lose and in trouble because the town in divided on what to do. This is assuming 3 scum of course.

I'm very happy with an MBF lynch right now. Somebody hammer him so we can get to working on Gorrad.

Thank you for proving my point.

[dahill1]

In regards to dahill, you say that you were "on board for an izzy lynch until MBF posted that ridiculous case and voted for her, and he hasn't been much better since then." Do you really believe that? First of all you AGREED with half of the "ridiculous case" in question. Another part was flavor-related that I have since retracted. The other was in regards to the neighbor thing, which I still think is important, even though others disagree. Also, do you really think I "haven't been much better since"? Seriously? It's a bit soul-crushing that I would start putting lots of effort into the game, and you act like it's no big deal.

yes i agreed to part of the case, but the other part regarding flavor and the neighbor meta was what got me. even more so that you admitted to not even buying it yourself afterwards. by "much better", i meant in terms of townieness if that is even a word. obviously, you've put effort into this game so i'm not accusing you of not doing so. however, your recent attempt to get us to lynch gorrad or izzy instead of you? classic scum move. i can understand you wanting to lynch izzy but didn't you just mention how you don't have a read on gorrad yet? also, your defense for not lynching you is you basically saying "if you lynch me it's bad because then you will have no leads on scum because i'm town". i have seen this countless times by pleading scum before a lynch. of course we're not just gonna take your word that you're town and lynching you will harm the town