Mini 836: Commie Mafia (Game Over)

[le Chat]

Umm SerialClergyman: I know you said you'd elaborate further, but I expect to fully understand why you think mathcam/CoCo/Hoopla is more townie than I am and why I'm just as townie as Vaya! I'm super townie!

[Talitha]

SC: I can understand your point about timing of my responses. It is kinda true. I don't really have a brilliant answer except that I'm having difficulty getting

into

this game and I've also had limited energy. When I see something directed at me it firstly seems like a priority to answer it, and I find it pretty easy to do, so I can do it even when tired. Talking about other people and their actions seems to require more thinking and energy, and I havent got into the swing of it in this game yet unfortunately.

Because it's a way of appealing to emotion. By being offended at the argument against you you case people to feel a bit guilty and not push as hard. Hell, you're a busy mother of three who's just trying to dabble a bit in a game that gives you some pleasure in between running a busy household - even I feel guilty attacking you!

Heh, but I am evil enough that I would try and use this to my advantage whether town or scum.
Also, I believe there is a place for our emotions in mafia. We're arguing and voting people out of the game - it brings up emotions. They make the game richer IMO. They give us more info which which to judge whether other players are genuine or not. For what it's worth, I was genuinely annoyed at the time.

And here's a couple mini normal games where I'm scum way back when i had no job and only 2 kiddies. The golden years :
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... c&&start=0
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... c&&start=0

[Talitha]

Also, best day 1 info comes from bandwagons and the tears and histrionics that accompany them. No-one is feeling the fear of the noose right now; let's change that please!

[SensFan]

Attacking Sens and Harumafuki was legit (I finally understood your post after I replaced in - my god I read that 15 times not knowing what on earth you were talking about!)

Neither was at all legit, especially the one where she took the time to look up an old thread to accuse me of faking V/LA without taking the time to notice I'm gone from the site.

It's not that I'm accusing you of posting too little, I think Sens takes the cake on that one

Why are you implying I am or was lurking?

[Col.Cathart]

Actually, I missed that when I was reading the thread previously.

Cathart, it brings us back to Charter because his early bandwagon vote put Hoopla at L-2 which he dropped not three hours later to vote for me because "I'm ignoring his and Sensfan's votes." He said Hoopla looked town even though all she'd said was she's doesn't mind blatant bandwagons and voted Vaya as an alternative.

I really think, of all "odd" bandwagon voters, Charter is the scummiest one. Second would be Vaya. I don't even think Sensfan is scummy because of it. His responses seem to indicate a carefree attitude. I believe his vote was what he says it is, just a bandwagon vote. He doesn't defend it vehemently like the other two have.

Ok, I'm little confused now. I really don't want to search the thread yet again, but if I recall correctly, when you were arguing with Vaya, you said that SensFan's and Charter's vote were the same for the bandwagon as Haru's and Talitha's, while Vaya's vote was the scummiest becaused it pushed the bandwagon. Now you're saying that Charter vote is the scummiest. So... Which was true? Or if you explained this change of opinion, can you please state it again, because I may have missed it.

[CoCo]

Well, at the time, I was invested in the fact Vaya's vote was sitting squarely in the middle. What that has to do with anything is beyond me now. I suppose I could look it up to recall my train of thought... but I've since moved on to greener pastures.

Because Charter's later behavior in my eyes and Sensfan doesn't seem to blow his defense out of proportion or make attacks at me because of my theory, Charter's vote is the scummiest of the last three votes.

[mathcam]

Well, I'll certainly concede that the bulk of my efforts have been directed at CoCo. You guys have the same access to my previous posts as I do, but on a quick re-read, I've: placed an early vote on Vaya, called out CyberBob out on some wishy-washy language, took clear stances on Haru and Peabody, weighed in on the CyberBob/Cathart debate, and expressed a more mediated suspicion of Hoopla. But I'm not even sure what the point of your question was.

I know that you meant you need time to think about it, but that's what I find scummy.

I don't see how. Not all of us rely solely on our gut for our votes. Brains take time to work things out.

Why do I assume you're going to unvote CoCo? Same reasons as before, the vote is pointless, it has nowhere to go and you're not trying to make it go anywhere.

Those aren't reasons --

you

think the vote is pointless, I do not. Given that I don't know who I'd vote for afterwards, how is an unvote any less pointless than the CoCo vote?

And I'm not questioning him any more because he doesn't respond to questions (he almost seems proud of this fact), which is precisely one of my most clearly stated attacks on him. He completely ignores, or at least greatly postpones acknowledging, direct attacks or explicit questions direct directly at him. As scum, this would benefit him by waiting and seeing which arguments take hold against him before responding. No sense weaseling your way out of an argument if the town is just going to forget about anyway. A recent example is Peabody's 325:

Coco- What exactly led you to change your mind about Sensfan? Not even two pages ago, you were drilling him for making a suspicious vote and then leaving.

This is a fair question, very noticeable given the bold text, and got completely ignored twenty minutes later when CoCo made his next post. And, for that matter, look what's just happened in hist most recent post -- he's basically getting out of responding to a question by citing how long ago it was and how undocumented his thoughts were at the time! Gah!!!

Bush would've hired him as attorney general in a heartbeat.

So instead of furthering my attack on CoCo by questioning him, I've been attempting to penetrate the "Coco's scummy, but that's just his playstyle" attitude. Two recent thoughts on this: 1) Tally's "Since he posts so much, he'll slip up eventually if he's scum." This doesn't work if we let him ignore questions and attribute anything scummy he does to playstyle. 2) Hoopla's "Policy lynches on anti-town play." I completely agree, so I don't see how you can ignore CoCo. I even mildly understand your feeling that CoCo's aggressiveness is helpful to the town, but I just don't think it's enough to compensate. Look, I don't know CoCo is scum (I'm still suspicious that Charter might know he's

not

,

FOS: Charter

), but I do know that if he is, we're never going to catch him unless we make him answer questions. The best way to do this is through voting pressure, and while my vote alone won't do it, it's a start.

Finally, I know I should be commenting more on other discussions, but this whole he said/she said "active lurking" stuff tends to put me to sleep. Regardless of whether which pot is calling which kettle black, an accusation of active lurking is very subjective, and only in very compelling cases do I think it's indicative of scum.

Cam

[charter]

I know that you meant you need time to think about it, but that's what I find scummy.

I don't see how. Not all of us rely solely on our gut for our votes. Brains take time to work things out.

This is getting ridiculous. I explained how it was scummy in the next sentence.

Why do I assume you're going to unvote CoCo? Same reasons as before, the vote is pointless, it has nowhere to go and you're not trying to make it go anywhere.

Those aren't reasons --

you

think the vote is pointless, I do not. Given that I don't know who I'd vote for afterwards, how is an unvote any less pointless than the CoCo vote?

Well then, why aren't you trying to convince others to vote Coco? You must have other suspects at this point in the game, why not vote one of them? Being the only person to be voting someone, and not trying to get others to vote them, IS pointless.

2) Hoopla's "Policy lynches on anti-town play." I completely agree, so I don't see how you can ignore CoCo. I even mildly understand your feeling that CoCo's aggressiveness is helpful to the town, but I just don't think it's enough to compensate. Look, I don't know CoCo is scum (I'm still suspicious that Charter might know he's

not

,

FOS: Charter

), but I do know that if he is, we're never going to catch him unless we make him answer questions. The best way to do this is through voting pressure, and while my vote alone won't do it, it's a start.

First off, I do not think Coco is in any way, whatsoever, helpful, just need to clear that up. Second, if you agree with a policy lynch on Coco, that's fine, but that's clearly not what you think. You've said you think he's scummy, not that he's so anti town as to be policy lynched.

SerialClergyman, can you explain why you have the reads you do? I don't agree with almost all of them and you didn't explain any, so I have no idea what you're thinking right now.

I am thinking a scumtrio of Cathart, Peabody, mathcam.

[CoCo]

Mathcam and Charter: I find it ironic two of the people I dogged the hardest over the early bandwagon fiasco are arguing over my playstyle. Going so far as to suspect each other! Who's to say this isn't a distancing effort?

[Talitha]

Without ever having played with CoCo (or anyone like him) before I'm finding it hard to make up my mind on whether I think he's scum. I think there are others who are scummier, but it's hard to get any sense of conviction about that when no-one is under any real pressure from votes. Right now I'm content to let CoCo live another day and get rid of someone quieter today.

Vaya, are you there?

Could we have a vote count on this page please mod?

[CoCo]

Yeah, Vaya did sort of disappear when the flame died.

Vaya/Charter team?

[Kublai Khan]

Could we have a vote count on this page please mod?

No problem!

Official Vote Count

Players needed to lynch: 7

charter

- 4 - Peabody, SerialClergyman, CoCo, Col.Cathart - (L-3)

CoCo

- 1 - mathcam - (L-6)

Col.Cathart

- 1 - charter - (L-6)

Hoopla

- 1 - SensFan - (L-6)

Peabody

- 2 - Cyberbob, Talitha - (L-5)

Players not voting: Hoopla, le Chat, Vaya

Will do an activity check momentarily...
Activity check done. Prodding Vaya.

[mathcam]

This is getting ridiculous. I explained how it was scummy in the next sentence.

I know you did, but I disagreed with that explanation. In fact, I spent almost the entirety of my previous post responding to that next sentence. Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that the sentence I quoted was silly.

Well then, why aren't you trying to convince others to vote Coco?

My post answered this question rather directly. Stop being cocoesque.

And your distinction about policy lynches vs. scummy lynches is pointless. I think he's demonstrating anti-town behavior, and that's why I'm voting him. I only mentioned the policy lynch because that was the language that Hoopla used, and I was appealing to this point to try to convince her.

Mathcam and Charter: I find it ironic two of the people I dogged the hardest over the early bandwagon fiasco are arguing over my playstyle. Going so far as to suspect each other! Who's to say this isn't a distancing effort?

I know you think you're being cute, but intentionally sidestepping all of the relevant debate and posting pothy one-liners is just about as worthless to the town (and to the game) as a Translation Party player or someone who posts entirely using smiley faces. That you've managed to convince the rest of the players to forgive this is impressive.

I would still prefer a CoCo lynch, but

Unvote: CoCo, Vote: Charter.

Cam

[mathcam]

Interesting.

I just took a look at Mini 835, which CoCo replaced into. This is an ongoing game, so I don't want to belabor this point, but iso-CoCoing in that game leaves a very different impression of CoCo's playstyle -- he is self-deprecating, thoughtful, and responds to questions/attacks directed against him.

Whether this shift in behavior is deliberate or inadvertent, it means we can no longer attribute the anti-town tells he's been exuding as simply a by-product of his playstyle.

Cam

[CoCo]

Interesting.

I just took a look at Mini 835, which CoCo replaced into. This is an ongoing game, so I don't want to belabor this point, but iso-CoCoing in that game leaves a very different impression of CoCo's playstyle -- he is self-deprecating, thoughtful, and responds to questions/attacks directed against him.

Whether this shift in behavior is deliberate or inadvertent, it means we can no longer attribute the anti-town tells he's been exuding as simply a by-product of his playstyle.

Cam

Unvote. Vote Mathcam.

That's poor. Oh so poor. Did you expect people to not read the entire game, or what?
Furthermore, to use an on-going game is crap. Take a look at 807 and shut the hell up, scum.

[SensFan]

Vote: CoCo

Link me to this 807 game you're referring, then explain what in that game gives you the right to act anti-Town here and expect us to let you live.

[SerialClergyman]

Coco is town because of his stances and activity. His attacking of the wagon seemed genuine to me, and although I agree it wasn't particularly scummy, I can imagine someone without much experience in early wagons growing would be very alarmed to see it skyrocket like it did. I haven't actually agreed with him particularly much but his effort and attacks speak volumes to me. His long post with a summary at page five is a testment to that. Had he not been taking stances or pushing people, you might say there's elements of IIoA to it, but you can hardly accuse him of shying away from strong opinions and pressuring people.

mathcam is town because he has very considered opinions and isn't prepared to go with anything. He cut momentum on a wagon he was pushing by acknowledging why it was possible CoCo could have found the initial wagon scummy. He dismissed the attack on Peabody for being the red herring it was. He called out Cyberbob for his wishywashy appraisal of the initial argument. His post @ 128 reads as town to me. He unvoted when his arguments were satisfied and revoted when more came up. He has been very clear in his actions and posts. I read him as town.

Hoopla is town because she has forged ahead in pushing inactive people to post while still being clear on her position on major events. She seems transparent to me while taking an active role in getting the town up and at it. Her 263 post is fantastic, and her read on CoCo nailed it, imo. I think her discussion about the liklihood of hitting D1 scum is both true and gutsy.
(PS - this is why I am adjusting my playstyle to try to find a core group of players I can rule as town and work on hitting one of the rest. I think it's easier to identify town early, and even just a few people ruled out as town can really improve your lynching chance, even if there hasn't been time for scum to make a major mistake yet.)

My read on Vaya was based on her initial argument with CoCo but I think I'm downgrading that because the point that she has been very quiet since is definitely worrying. Her vote on Col Cath was also terribad. Consider her back to neutral/no read.

My read on le chat comes with just a small voice that is worrying to me. I find your playstyle inheritly scummy, right from the first post I was getting bad vibes from you, but once I got over it and started looking objectively I got over it. It's not enough to clear you for me, but it's enough to think you're town. Your catchup post looked obvtown to me.

I'll try to explain my gut scumread on Cyberbob.

His attacks seem to be always focused on a couple of quotable lines that in isolation are scummy. They are careful. He rarely opens his scope, just finds something small that is reasonable to attack and attacks it. It's not that his attacks aren't valid, it's that they are very mediocre. It looks like someone trying to find safe things to attack rather than someone trying to determine who scum is.

For example, here's a list of things which Cyberbob has attacked and his positions:

1) Says that the argument around the early wagon looks like a bunch of townies all shaking their fists at each other. This would be good except he then went on to say that he didn't mean he thought they were townies, rather it felt like a townie argument and he considered it a null tell. It started off looking like a good and reasonable position and ended up like a massive fence sit. No stance, no pushing people as town (something scum are often loathe to do), no weighing in on the major issue beyond the fact he wasn't weighing in at all and considered it a null tell for everyone involved in the debate.

2) Attacks Peabody for the RVS issue. You know my feelings on that, but either way, it's a safe little point. Forget his content, forget his game-specific positions and questions, focus on the quotable 2-line scummy point of an RVS vote after a bit of serious stuff had happened.

3) Attacks Peabody for saying he didn't know why he had to justify his vote. Again, really not that scummy in context but quotable and safe to go after. Not looking at the big picture.

4) Agrees with someone elses reasoning on Haru and signals he'd be up for a wagon.

5) Attacks Peabody for using similar language to what Peabody attacked him for earlier (wishywashy language like feels). I agree there's some hypocrasy but again it doesn't seem like strenuous scumhunting. It's hardly a big issue, and more disproves Peabody's point about Cyberbob's language than condemns Peabody for being scummy - but again it's a safe point to bring up.

6) Attacks CoCo for overreactive or combative language, again without going much deeper than 'your language is at times combative and even derisive'.

7) 'Had a look' at charter, but only in the context of CoCo's vote on him. So he didn't answer whether he thought charter was scummy, or even talk aobut the major arguments, just that after reading charter he felt he could comment on CoCo's vote.

8) Attacks CoCo for 'reaching like a pro' because of his (bad) argument about wanting to see more from charter because charter used the word 'reports'.

9) Attacks Col Cath for not backing up CoCo while being on his side. This is probably the attack I think is most justified, I agree it was very scummy of the Col to do this.

10) says he isn't sensing a charter wagon at the moment but gives zero reason as to why. He does go on to talk about CoCo and Col Cath and their reasons for pushing, but that's the second time he's looked at charter and yet commented on absolutely nothing charter has said or done.

11) Agrees with the active lurking charge on Col Cath (and charter).

12) Attacks me on a 'how do you know' point about 1/5 scum on a wagon, which was another typical 'gotcha' quotable post without looking at the whole (and a particularly poor one given the argument at the time, I feel.)

------

So I feel there's a pattern to his play. Look for small, quotable bits of scumminess. Make points that can hardly be disagreed with, even if they don't really point to the author as scummy. Zero effort in analysing a player thoroughly, zero effort in declaring people town, rarely looks at events in context and is very sure to focus on what he's found. Clear noone, rarely switch your vote and FoS everyone. His interactions with charter stick out because unlike almost everyone else he hasn't FoSed him, hasn't found something small to quote and niggle at and despite mentioning a couple of times, hasn't talked aobut his play at all.

I'm currently prepared to lynch anyone not in my town or leaning town group, so I don't want to get too tunneled on someone, but this type of play that I really don't like. It doesn't look genuine. It's easy to push his points because he's caught a minor slip or contradiction, so he's right. But he doesn't use that as a springboard, doesn't persue it. It doesn't look to me like he's trying to find scum, it looks like he's trying to attack people without getting his hands dirty. Add a couple of wishy washy views about early events and some odd behaviour towards charter and you have a scumread from me.

It's almost 2am so I'm going to retire, I'll try to come back with a more thorough read through of my neutrals and see where I can place people.

@Sens -

I am implying you were useless to the game for a long stretch of time. Your first 5 points include a vote on Hoopla in the RVS then 11 days later you came back and unvoted then revoted the same person :/. You had RL reasons to not be in the game, that's fine, but Hoopla had every reason to call you on it. And it's entirely legitimate to question whether or not your VLA was legit given you've said it's part of your meta that you'd be prepared to lie about it to benefit your game.

So you're here now, good times, lets get on with the game. I'm interested in hearing more from you, and your preoccupation with people who attacked you for not saying anything for 11 days is further obscuring your take on the game.

And attacking Haru was legit because his posts were actively illegible, you can't play the game with people like that, as hilarious as they were.

[mathcam]

That's poor. Oh so poor. Did you expect people to not read the entire game, or what?

Of course not. I didn't even read the whole game, as is evident by my phrase "iso-Cocoing" (unless I've used that phrase incorrectly, in which case I apologize).

Furthermore, to use an on-going game is crap. Take a look at 807 and shut the hell up, scum.

It's not crap just because you can't defend against it. I want to emphasize that I'm not saying anything particular about whether you are scummier here or in that game...I would agree that it's a little bit "crap" to do that. What I am saying is that the two playstyles are different, and so the argument "Oh, that's just his playstyle" is incorrect.

But it's nice to see that I finally got you to respond to an against you -- that's how this game is supposed to work.

Cam

p.s. Nice post, SC -- haven't processed it completely, but I think I need to give CyberBob a solid look now. And I obviously disagree abotu CoCo -- his long post on page 5 was almost devoid of content. IIRC, a good chunk of the posts were mild paraphrasing with no commentary. I'm certainly not accusing him of shying away from pressuring people, and I can even see how someone would find that pro-town, but of the two sides of the attack/defense coin, a strength on one side does not make up for a complete absence of anything on the other side.

[mathcam]

Oh, and CoCo, I got to that game in particular just by goggling

coco site:mafiascum.net

and taking the first result. I haven't looked at 807, but I can't see how it changes the point that your playstyle is not the same in every game (which is the only argument I'm making).

Cam

[Hoopla]

2) Hoopla's "Policy lynches on anti-town play." I completely agree, so I don't see how you can ignore CoCo. I even mildly understand your feeling that CoCo's aggressiveness is helpful to the town, but I just don't think it's enough to compensate. Look, I don't know CoCo is scum (I'm still suspicious that Charter might know he's

not

,

FOS: Charter

), but I do know that if he is, we're never going to catch him unless we make him answer questions. The best way to do this is through voting pressure, and while my vote alone won't do it, it's a start.

I understand that, and I can easily see how CoCo's play can be interpretted as scum. I feel like I'm tricking myself into the 'too scummy to be scum' mindset, because it's not a typical place for scum to hide, especially on D1. It increases your likelihood of being lynched, and makes you a hot target for night choices. This is why I have a town read on CoCo.

CoCo has worth to the town. His aggressiveness and his activeness, despite occasional question-dodging is relatively pro-town. If/when CoCo dies, his confirmed alignment will hold a vast amount of data to work with on a lot of players, which is why I think it's worthwhile keeping him alive for at least another day.

Some of his play is probably anti-town, but he is definitely readable. This is the difference between chronic lurkers and players like Haru. I think prolonged failure to answer questions when we have confirmed information in the game would negate his pro-town value, but for now, he has enough use to negate his anti-townness.

It's not something he ought to get away with all game, and I expect CoCo will be more compliant when proper cases based on confirmed information surface. If not, then he is worth seriously considering.

[SensFan]

And it's entirely legitimate to question whether or not your VLA was legit given you've said it's part of your meta that you'd be prepared to lie about it to benefit your game.

Except its not at all legitimate, since a very basic search shows I was completely gone from the site. Not posting in any of my 4 ongoing games (one of which is a Newb game), not posting in any of my ongoing MishMash commitments, including the game I'm modding. Comments in that MishMash game about me being gone. My sig indicating I was gone. There was no reason at all to even suspect I would be faking it, and so the mention of that is incredibly scummy.

And attacking Haru was legit because his posts were actively illegible, you can't play the game with people like that, as hilarious as they were.

There was nothing at all wrong with Haru, for numerous reasons, some of with Tally pointed out. Just like I wouldn't lynch someone posting just in emoticons, as long as they were still voting and contributing.

Not at all liking this post from SC, for reasons completely unrelated to those quoting; just gives me a vibe of massive amounts of noise, hoping to obscure the fact the little signal there is isn't very pertinent.

[SerialClergyman]

Haru's writing and reasoning was utterly illegible. You're either arguing for the sake of it or arguing because you don't like that I thought it legit to attack you. You were useless to the town, sitewide absense or no, and that's a bad thing. You're here now, the issue should be dropped without you devoting most of your actual posts to it.

Speaking of which, you say that there was nothing wrong with Haru because he was still voting and contributing, yet my long posts with detailed reads on most of the game, fresh reasoning and thread-based evidence and transparent stances are little signal. Maybe I should just post in emoticons.

[Cyberbob]

SC: I don't have a huge amount of time to make my posts each day because of study concerns, and I'm not the best at analysing positions and all that anyway. My discussion of Peabody's defence of his "RVS" vote and the one of CoCo's emotionalness are about as far as I can go without a cardflip on which I can anchor my readings.

I'm just really not too flash at following "the big picture" of someone's play without

something

to set the groundwork first. It's certainly an aspect of

my

play I need to improve but it's pretty much always been how I play whether I'm scum or town.

With regards to the pursuing thing, that's entirely true at all. I

do

remember the little oddities and such that I pick out early in the game and I do use those later on, but I'm not about to go on the warpath over something like your 1/5 comment alone. My initial vote on Peabody wasn't too strong; I would have in all likelihood unvoted if he'd passed it off as a joke or something. But he didn't - he defended it seriously as a "serious" random vote and went on to pursue a rather OMGUSy attack on me besides that ended up being one of the biggest contradictions I've ever seen. I see you passed that one entirely off; I honestly don't see how.

By the looks many of your problems with my play have to do with charter, and I agree that I have not been looking at him very much - or at least not as much as I could have. I did have a go the other day but gave up. Would it make you happier if I was to try again now?

Bottom line: "big picture" discussion generally makes my head spin, sorry, will try to improve in this regard once we have something solid to use (like a cardflip or a possible investigation), do think you're coming close to misrepresenting me with some of your points however. Particularly with that one about active lurking; I said in Post 330 that I did not think that either one of charter and Cathart were actively lurking about as explicitly as can be.

[Cyberbob]

I'm currently prepared to lynch anyone not in my town or leaning town group, so I don't want to get too tunneled on someone,

This is pretty funny, just saying.

[SensFan]

Haru's writing and reasoning was utterly illegible. You're either arguing for the sake of it or arguing because you don't like that I thought it legit to attack you.

Haru's votes were legible, Haru's suspicions were legible.

Speaking of which, you say that there was nothing wrong with Haru because he was still voting and contributing, yet my long posts with detailed reads on most of the game, fresh reasoning and thread-based evidence and transparent stances are little signal. Maybe I should just post in emoticons.

I'd prefer someone posting like Haru did to someone posting like your mammoth post was, yes.