Newbie game 806: Game over (the scums win)

[Johoohno]

Vote count

(9 players alive = 5 to lynch before deadline)
(2) Toledo88 - Dizzle, d3x
(1) iPeanut - Toledo88
(1) d3x - Zachrulez
(1) somerand0mguy - sigma

Not voting:

Fakemaster, iPeanut, somerand0mguy, spiritMSTR

Deadline

: 16 July

[Johoohno]

Replacement

Fakemaster is replaced by HowardRoark (effective immediately). Thanks!

[HowardRoark]

Howdy, y'all! I'm reading the thread and hope to throw in my two cents soon.

Why do people offer a penny for your thoughts, but you offer your two cents to a debate? Is it simply an ante to join the discussion's pot, or a matter of egotism thinking that what you have to say means more? Eh.

[somerand0mguy]

Ok I've looked over everything and so far sigma seems a little quick to vote.
Maybe I had no explanation if I had randomly voted someone and be in contradiction in what I said second. Are you really vote in the second page for something I explained,and fast voting will get us nowhere except for a lynched townie. Unless we get really lucky and manage to catch us a mafia.


D3x seems kind of suspicious,but I have a feeling he just really doesnt like random voting. And for now I think hes a townie (not that I wont watch him).


SpiritMSTR,he seems kind of new.


Ipeanut, youre just mad because I showed you the truth about John's mom arent you? Anyways on a more serious note, I think that toledo was simply trying to get discussion started and that its not completely his fault if he "Ignored another players wishes" because honestly how else are we going to get this game started?

[HowardRoark]

@sigma: I love RVS! I'm sorry that I missed it.

@Zachrules: I would have RV'ed you for the Vikings avatar.

@somerand0mguy: For future reference, a self vote is usually considered scummy. During the RVS in a newbie game, no harm; it can start discussion. You need to provide your input without being prompted. You are my number two suspect right now. Posting with little content as you have been is known as active lurking. I love lurker lynches. I love active lurker lynches even more. (Of course, I prefer obvscum lynches most! )

@iPeanut: Your post 30 looks like buddying with Zachrulez and distancing from d3x. Why no vote on d3x there?

vote d3x

The points have been pretty much already been made. You attacked Toledo88 for not following sigma's wishes. This is a scummy attack in and of itself. It is also scummier due to your misrepresentation of sigma's post. Your putting Toledo88 at L-2 and casting a warning reads scummy. It's one thing to state that someone is at L-2, but another to try to distance yourself from your vote's weight like that. In post 72 you "cherry pick" just as you said RVS can empower scum to do.

[d3x]

@HR-

GO PENS!!!

Aside from that irrelevant nonsense...

Again, I'm going to ask for quotes; neither you nor Dizzle {although he's not posted in thread since my request} have quoted relevant posts.

With your...

The points have been pretty much already been made.

I'm reading a lazy attack built off of others' points with no reference to the discussion that has transpired since the initial comments. Let's break them down one by one, shall we?

You attacked Toledo88 for not following sigma's wishes. This is a scummy attack in and of itself.

Why? Don't make a blanket statement without backing it up. No one knows what you're getting at. I could say, "Typing in Blue text is scummy", but without reasons, how do you hope to convince people to your side? Unless you're trying to build a bandwagon and hope the steam will bring the passengers along {See final comment of this post for more examples}.

It is also scummier due to your misrepresentation of sigma's post.

People keep saying I misrepresented, but no one is willing to say exactly where. When sigma weighed in on the topic, he even said...

I do think the implication is definitely there, so I don't have a big problem with you reading it the way you did

So are you seriously trying to tell me that I misrepresented him by saying what he was infering? That's exactly the opposite of misrepresentation, in fact.

Your putting Toledo88 at L-2 and casting a warning reads scummy. It's one thing to state that someone is at L-2, but another to try to distance yourself from your vote's weight like that.

In a game of newbs, why would you

not

warn people to not bandwagon and accidentally lynch, especially on page 2? Isn't this a place to learn and teach? Besides, I'm not distancing myself from my vote at all. What I am doing is saying that I have a serious suspicion on someone who's already got 2 random votes on him. I personally don't like the idea of a speed lynch occuring because someone isn't paying attention. Aside from this, I've already outlined my reasons for voting in spite of the 2 random votes {See p44}.

In post 72 you "cherry pick" just as you said RVS can empower scum to do.

Post 72 doesn't exist yet, so I have

no idea

what you're refering to. Please elaborate with quotes.

With what I have outlined above and the...

Why no vote on d3x there?

...comment; trying to push iP into a bandwagon, I'm seeing a dangerous and sloppy Scum play forming. IGMEOY, HR.

[iPeanut]

I see what you're saying, iP. Ignoring his wishes and ignoring his question are two different things, though. Toledo definitely acknowledged his question by answering it, but ignored his request {see p43-45 for implied vs direct request} to skip the RVS, IMO. That was the action I was saying translated to scummy in my book. What I didn't acknowledge earlier was that he didn't ignore the question, but the request. The 2 quotes are refering to 2 different things.

Aha, I see the distinction. Okay, that makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up, although I do still wonder why you chose not to acknowledge the question in the first place. Any particular reason?

Ipeanut, youre just mad because I showed you the truth about John's mom arent you? Anyways on a more serious note, I think that toledo was simply trying to get discussion started and that its not completely his fault if he "Ignored another players wishes" because honestly how else are we going to get this game started?

She was a dream before you happened. *sniff*

Was that last part directed at me...? o.o

@iPeanut: Your post 30 looks like buddying with Zachrulez and distancing from d3x. Why no vote on d3x there?

Before anything else, welcome to the game! =D

In that particular debate, I simply happen to disagree with d3x, while Zachrulez also happens to disagree. I was pointing out what I felt had been missed.

I don't like voting seriously in the early game unless serious pressure's needed on another player. It's not a worry of lynch, either, but I normally just feel that I shouldn't vote without enough evidence, especially if it's something trivial like that. The sort of thing I was suspicious of was quickly refuted, as would have been my vote; it's scummier to hop around on votes so carelessly.

[sigma]

Ok I've looked over everything and so far sigma seems a little quick to vote.
Maybe I had no explanation if I had randomly voted someone and be in contradiction in what I said second. Are you really vote in the second page for something I explained,and

fast voting will get us nowhere except for a lynched townie.

Unless we get really lucky and manage to catch us a mafia.

Bolding mine. You're implying that I'm in favor of a quick-lynch by voting for you. That's absolutely false. Let's be clear: a quick vote, especially when it's the first one put on you, does not equal a quick lynch. That's why people can be free with their votes in RVS. Also, we're early in day 1. Unless someone's close to being lynched, I think that my vote should be on my top suspect. Good thing it already is, then.

@spirit: Good to hear from you.

Hey everybody, seeing as how this is my frist Mafia game, I'm not really sure how to properly inject myself into this stage of discussion/voting.

My suggestions for getting into the discussion: Ask questions. State your opinions. State your suspicions of other players and the reasons behind them. Ooh, nice segue:

@iPeanut
I agree with you that somerand0mguy's behaviour has been odd, and for now I Unvote - Sigma, and I shall attempt to put myself into this discussion somewhat further before voting.

What specifically do you find odd about somerand0mguy's behavior?

[d3x]

@iP-

I do still wonder why you chose not to acknowledge the question in the first place.

Well, for the same reason I haven't responded to anyone else's answer to sigma's question. I didn't find it scummy nor really worthy of discussing. What I did find scummy and worth voting was my interpretation that Toledo was ignoring sigma's wishes.

By the by, you, me, and sigma {based on a quick reread just now} were the only ones who actually did answer Toledo's question. I did acknowledge and respond to the question, but as I said, I don't think it has anything to do with why I voted him. Thus, in my "attack", I did not mention it. This led to Zach saying...

Your post seems to imply that Toledo chose to random vote instead of pursuing the discussion topic

And if I didn't do a better job of it earlier, I'll try again. I was not trying to imply this. I was saying that Toledo was ignoring sigma's intention to skip the RVS.

I hope this serves to continue to clear up my line of thinking.

[Zachrulez]

@d3x

It still stands that in your original attack you did not acknowledge that Toledo was pursuing discussion while random voting. This is why I find your vote scummy.

Now for the sake of argument let's take Toledo's post.

Hi all, this should be fun.

My thoughts on rvs: I'm a supporter of it. First off, it's a good way for discussion to get started. It doesn't just pop up out of a void-of-post game. Also, sometimes people come up with funny/witty random votes. Though people are entitled to their opinions, so I'm fine.

Vote: iPeanut

There can only be one SE!

Oh yeah, I also have a question: which alignment does everyone prefer (town or scum)? I'm not going to hold against you whatever anyone says. I'm for town, since I'd get too nervous being scum.

And compare it to my introductory post.

Hi all and welcome to Mafiascum.

I am your IC for this ride. I like to think of myself as your set of training wheels, keeping you steady on your bike while you learn how to ride it. I will be happy to answer any game theory questions you might have throughout the game, after all, that's what I'm here for.

As for the RVS question, it's by far considered the best way to start play in a game, but there are alternatives. (Sigma starting discussion by asking about RVS itself is one example). The results of RVS do vary greatly depending on the players in the game, in some cases discussion fires off and the game moves along quickly, and in other games, RVS can drag along because the players have somewhat of an uncertainty about how to go about starting the game up.

Vote: Toledo88

He says there can only be one SE, but he never said it had to be him.

Now there's not really much different about those posts at all is there? You say you don't have a problem with me, but under the very logic you use to go after Toledo, you could have used the same reasoning to cast a vote on me.

That's just comparing Toledo's post to mine. Several other players also "went against Sigma's wishes."

Which brings about a 2nd question. Why is Sigma's opinion so important to you? You are painting the reaction to what you perceive to be someone's wishes as scummy when that person's alignment is unknown. I don't really get why his opinions or wishes for how the game should be played are so important to you. It just seems strange.

[Zachrulez]

It looks like d3x also gave other reasons for his Toledo vote in post 44.

I'm having a look at that post now.

[Zachrulez]

My play with putting an actual vote on Toledo stemmed from a few things.

1. I saw a move that I translated as scummy- ignoring another player's wishes.
2. Putting pressure on a player as early as possible so as to elicit a response and gauge said response.
3. To watch the reactions/lack thereof from the other players.
4. To see if I could draw out any Scum with an L-2 vote.
and finally 5. To put the early kill on what I see as a mostly useless/potentially harmful stage of the game.

I think all 5 of these items are good strategies this early in the game.

1. As established in post 59, he was not the only one to do this. So was he the only one of the people who did this that was scummy, or was everyone?
2. I can certainly understand the merits behind this approach in early game.
3. Also a valid motivation for casting a vote.
4. Can you explain this reason better for me? I don't understand the thinking here.
5. Well, your vote certainly did move the game along, I will give you that.

Points 2, 3, and 5 are good motivators for casting a non random vote in the middle game. You still need an action that's actually scummy to vote on. Points 2 and 3 a lot more effective when you actually have a good reason for a vote.

I don't understand the motivation for point 4 at all. If the reasons for your vote are sound, how would said vote draw out scum? Wouldn't it be just as likely that townies would agree with your reasoning and vote with you? Or is the vote intentionally shaky in order to see if you can draw scum out on your weak reasoning? See this seems to contradict everything you are saying about the validity of your reasoning for your vote.

[d3x]

@Zach, p59...

It still stands that in your original attack you did not acknowledge that Toledo was pursuing discussion while random voting.

But with my position that the RVS is counter-productive to discussion where discussion is a valid option, can you see where I'm coming from? Maybe this will help. Question- Why don't we have an RVS in the middle of Day 2? Answer- Because we have useful things to discuss. If we have things to discuss, then why is the RVS useful? Had everyone followed sigma's play and skipped the RVS in favor of asking and answering pertinent questions {ie- playing the game}, we would've gotten full and meaningful discussion going right from word one. Instead, the discussion was hampered and overshadowed by the RVS. And if you don't believe that is the case, then answer me this. Why is it that out of 8 players {not including Toledo himself} only 3 answered Toledo's question? Had the RVS not been started, Toledo's question would've gotten as much attention as sigma's, I'd bet. 2 discussion starting points in 2 posts makes for a strong game-start, IMO.

You say you don't have a problem with me, but under the very logic you use to go after Toledo, you could have used the same reasoning to cast a vote on me.

And had you posted 1st after sigma, I would've. It was Toledo's starting the RVS after sigma's request {again implied or direct} that I found scummy. Once something is done, it can't be undone. Thus, the inciting event is more suspicious than a continued trend, IMO. I don't think it's scummy to take part in an established RVS or even to start one... unless someone requests otherwise first.

Why is Sigma's opinion so important to you?

Honestly, it isn't. I had no reason to trust or distrust sigma {aside from normal healthy Mafia paranoia}. What

is

important to me is, neither did Toledo. If you have strong suspicion against someone, I can understand not wanting to accomodate their requests on how the progression of the game should flow. It's the act itself, not really sigma's opinion, that matters to me. As I just so happen to agree with the worth of the RVS, this proved to be a good standing ground to me.

@Zach, p61
1. See above. If it's still unclear, just ask. I'm happy to explain.
2.Thx
3.Thx
4.Well, it's a chance that if we have 2 newb Scum, they might slip and quickvote on an L-2 Bandwagon. It's not the strongest play, I'll give you, but that doesn't mean it's not worth trying, IMO.
5.As planned.

See this seems to contradict everything you are saying about the validity of your reasoning for your vote.

I can see how it might read that way, yes. These are strategies that I'm making up as I go along. It's a horrible defense, and I don't like using it, but this is only my 2nd game of Mafia ever, anywhere. If something doesn't work, this is the place to find out, right? The Newbie Queue?

[Toledo25]

1. Welcome to the game HowardRoark!

@Zach, p59...

It still stands that in your original attack you did not acknowledge that Toledo was pursuing discussion while random voting.

But with my position that the RVS is counter-productive to discussion where discussion is a valid option, can you see where I'm coming from? Maybe this will help. Question- Why don't we have an RVS in the middle of Day 2? Answer- Because we have useful things to discuss. If we have things to discuss, then why is the RVS useful? Had everyone followed sigma's play and skipped the RVS in favor of asking and answering pertinent questions {ie- playing the game}, we would've gotten full and meaningful discussion going right from word one. Instead, the discussion was hampered and overshadowed by the RVS. And if you don't believe that is the case, then answer me this. Why is it that out of 8 players {not including Toledo himself} only 3 answered Toledo's question? Had the RVS not been started, Toledo's question would've gotten as much attention as sigma's, I'd bet. 2 discussion starting points in 2 posts makes for a strong game-start, IMO.?

OK, maybe this will help express my opinion. One: I like the RVS stage. I personally think it's useful. Two: I don't think just a discussion on our opinions on RVS would spawn anything worthwhile. I've yet to see RVS fail to generate real discussions within the first 2 or 3 pages.

4.Well, it's a chance that if we have 2 newb Scum, they might slip and quickvote on an L-2 Bandwagon. It's not the strongest play, I'll give you, but that doesn't mean it's not worth trying, IMO.

No.

I am 99.9% sure that scum would never do that, especially both of them. That would pretty much guarantee their lynch in the upcoming days.

2. Putting pressure on a player as early as possible so as to elicit a response and gauge said response.
3. To watch the reactions/lack thereof from the other players.

Good reasons for sure, but care to evaluate on the results on either yet?

[d3x]

Toledo, I understand that you like the RVS, you have said as much in your first post. I would like to ask why. You said that you think it aids in starting discussion, but we had multiple ways to start the discussion without the RVS. You said that you don't think we could've started anything worthwhile by just discussing the pros and cons of the RVS. While I tend to disagree, that's not the only option we had. You asked another question regarding preference over Scum/Town. Had we followed this course of action, a dialogue would've sprung up with no need for the RVS. As I said before, I think the RVS actually hampered real discussion. Again, I point to my example that we only had 3 people answer your question, does that not bother you? The same number were cracking jokes about John's mom.

I've yet to see RVS fail to generate real discussions within the first 2 or 3 pages.

That is correct. If you rely

solely

on the RVS to generate discussion, it will eventually generate real discussions. However...

but there are alternatives. (Sigma starting discussion by asking about RVS itself is one example).

I saw this as a better alternative. It would get us out of the RVS faster than allowing the joking and nonsense to continue.

I am 99.9% sure that scum would never do that, especially both of them.

At the risk of being called out for "misrepresenting" again, I will then ask you, does that mean you will only employ tactics that are 100% guaranteed to catch Scum? If so, we're going to have a very long and very silent game. No plan is 100% effective. Again, just because something has a less than optimal chance for success doesn't mean we shouldn't try it. Scum slip. Period. New Scum probably slip more. I stand behind my tactic and my reasoning.

That would pretty much guarantee their lynch in the upcoming days.

Hence my play.

care to evaluate on the results on either yet?

Frankly, no. Not everyone has weighed in yet, and I think that most gambits lose their poignancy once they are fully brought to light. I do have some suspicions that have arisen, but it is far too early to hope that I will have a full evaluation on the reaction. If that's not enough for you, check p37 and p55 to see where I'm leaning ATM. I am rather curious why you have chosen to ignore my questions in p27 and p42, though. For a full recap...

My point was, you randomly voting ultimately started the RVS immediately after sigma asked to skip the RVS. Why?

...and...

This doesn't particularly help either side much.

And why are you concerned with the Scum side being helped?

If I've missed your answers, I sincerely appologize and ask that you kindly point them out to me.

[sigma]

I am 99.9% sure that scum would never do that, especially both of them.

At the risk of being called out for "misrepresenting" again, I will then ask you, does that mean you will only employ tactics that are 100% guaranteed to catch Scum?

If so, we're going to have a very long and very silent game. No plan is 100% effective. Again, just because something has a

less than optimal chance for success

doesn't mean we shouldn't try it. Scum slip. Period. New Scum probably slip more. I stand behind my tactic and my reasoning.

This is terrible logic. If Toledo's 99.9% sure that the tactic won't work, then that means he thinks there's a 0.1% chance of it working. So basically, you just said: "Hmm, I see you won't employ a tactic that works 0.1% of the time. Do you only use tactics that work 100% of the time?" Avoiding tactics with a negligible chance of working is completely different from avoiding tactics that have a "less than optimal chance of success."

It's funny you should mention misrepresentation in your post, because you're basically implying that Toledo isn't interested in scumhunting unless it works every time, which doesn't seem true to me.

FoS:d3x

[d3x]

Wow. Sarcasm is really lost on this board. My point is {I feel like I'm saying this a lot}, no plan works 100% of the time. Saying that something will fail 99.9% of the time without a full blown case study to backup that data is useless. I will put this as plainly as I can.

I am willing to use a tactic that may work no matter what the percentage chance of success or fail.

Made-up percentages mean nothing to me. The fact that Toledo wouldn't use my tactic means nothing to me. If there is a chance to catch Scum, I will take it.

[d3x]

No.

By the way Toledo, what exactly is the use of the bolded 18pt font in addressing my

opinion

? I'd understand if I said 2+2=19, but I'm talking about a tactic that I chose, understanding and outlining full-well that it's a longshot. And why take such a huge {pun intended} stance on only one of my 5 points? Does that mean that you agreed with the other 4, but felt the need to

disagree

with one? Afterall, you suspiciously agreed with 2 and left the others alone.

[sigma]

Just to make sure I understand the point of your question about tactics:

When you asked Toledo your question, did you expect an answer, or was the question rhetorical?

[d3x]

Did you

seriously

just link me to the definition of a rhetorical question?

*facepalm*

Although I don't want to, I will answer your inquiry. The answer to

my

question is no. He does not only use tactics that are 100% guaranteed to succeed as those do not exist. There is no possible answer but no. I even answer my own question 2 sentences later by saying...

No plan is 100% effective.

I did not expect him to answer that question as it is impossible, although answers to the other 2 are still required.

[sigma]

The link was for anyone following the conversation who didn't know the definition, not you specifically.

[d3x]

Yes sigma, but the true irony is that...

Did you

seriously

just link me to the definition of a rhetorical question?

...is a rhetorical question.

[Toledo25]

Argh, I just typed a post, and then it didn't go through >.<

I'll re-make it tomorrow.

[Dizzle]

Sorry for my 2nd semi-extended absence. No time to make a full post right now, but I'll be back in the game 100% starting tomorrow.

[Johoohno]

Oh, look! A totally pointless post just to give the mod a chance to post on top of next page.