Mini 865 -- Evil Eyes (Over)

[julienvonwolfe]

Hmmm, I've played with tubby, Suave, IAUN and Hoopla before.

[julienvonwolfe]

oh, and xRECKONERx, I think.

[julienvonwolfe]

Hmmm, I've played with tubby, Suave, IAUN and Hoopla before.

Um, hi.

[julienvonwolfe]

third person on the wagon Hoopla? and why are you promoting iamausername's wagon? both are noted.

Vote: Mr. Suave

Anxious?

[julienvonwolfe]

Hoopla didn't seem more anxious than you, no.

[julienvonwolfe]

what does my age hav to do with anything?
and my startdate is under my pic. and if you must know, I was never in a noobie game. ever. But I have played RL mafia before this forum mafia. and again, what does that have to do with anything in this game?

I asked a question and I expect an answer, not an evasion. Learning fringe information about other players rims their posts with context.

How many games have you played on MS? My search page is doing that refresh blank thing.

I played with Suave in what I think is his first game here. I'm dead, he's still alive, so we shouldn't talk about it too much.

However, his playstyle seems consistent with that game, and he's a nightmare to read. He seems to have improved though - he seems to actually be trying to hunt for mafia this time.

And yo, what's up, Toro? Who are your scumbuddies?

[julienvonwolfe]

Who cares about his age or annoying posting style, just as long as contributes and does his best to find scum will be enough. Actually no, lets just policy lynch him.

That's tempting. However, I feel that he's quite easy to read - do you disagree? (of course, he hasn't flipped in that other game yet).

I would only policy lynch if a player was impossible to read, through pure annoyance and not any sort of skill.

[julienvonwolfe]

The whole thing between Nuwen and geek seems to have dissolved into 'no, you!' kind of shit. It took a bit of effort to follow their little back-and-forth.


The boring bit:

MrSuave: How old are you, and how long have you been playing Mafia?

A reasonable question. No problems here.

what does my age hav to do with anything?
and my startdate is under my pic. and if you must know, I was never in a noobie game. ever. But I have played RL mafia before this forum mafia. and again, what does that have to do with anything in this game?

I asked a question and I expect an answer, not an evasion. Learning fringe information about other players rims their posts with context.

How many games have you played on MS? My search page is doing that refresh blank thing.

Okay, so she wants to know fringe information in order to help establish a read. Fair enough.

Because the tone and style of your posts sounds like a gerbil on amphetamines, and your age might reveal whether that's hyperactivity or game-relevant jitters. I'm assuming that since it's such a big deal, you're quite young. That's fine.

I'm not quite seeing what you can necessarily garner from MrSuave's age... Age doesn't necessarily translate into hyperactivity that could be used to excuse the jitteriness that MrSuave is exhibiting. Additionally, players within the same age range can have totally different levels of composure in the game, so I don't really think age can be counted in weighing scum tells. I think it's the player's personality in general that helps in weighing.

Geek wades in with a post that basically tells Nuwen off for collecting fringe info. I think he's missing the point, and possibly taking it personally; if Suave was indeed a hyperactive 13-year-old, that would be useful information, and as such, I think Nuwen's original enquiry of Suave was fine. However, Geek does make a good point that not all people of the same age are equal.

Interestingly, it does come across as a bit of a Suave defense, come to think of it. Geek, why did you feel the need to contribute this?

I never said the behavior was alignment-indicative, only that I didn't know whether is was specific to this game or a general floozyness. Do you think my inquiry is scummy?

Nuwen replies in a manner that I approve of.

Then why did you want to know age if you didn't think it was alignment indicative...? I still don't see how age in particular is related to judging a person's particular posting style. For example, according to MrSuave's information, I'm in the same age range as him. How does that bit of information now help you in analyzing me?

Geek shows that he continues to miss the point. But here's the interesting bit:

1. From a scum perspective, Iam's vote on Geek would make little sense - he placed it early, without case material to stand on. The intent obviously comes from a non-scum faction pressuring out more information, prioritizing scum hunting over personal appearance.

Nuwen, I'm not seeing why scum wouldn't do this. IAUN's vote was basically at the tail end of the RVS in my opinion (see Hoopla's later Suave vote), and as such, didn't need a heck of a lot of reasoning behind it. I can see why he made it, though, if he is town.


Here's where they both accuse each other of the same thing:

2. Geek's posts fish for any information, any material, regardless of whether it's alignment indicative. Even after I declined to answer his post 72, he continued to push the age issue.

I've been wondering why you're fishing for information that I feel is irrelevant to the game, Nuwen, and that you admit is alignment non-indicative. Why ask a question if you don't feel that it's pertinent to scum finding? I wanted to give you more of a chance to reply to my line of thought before I deemed your question scummy. So yes, I do feel that it's scummy.

Geek just seems to have taken the whole age thing a bit personally, and to have missed the point to Nuwen's original question as a result. I would like him to explain why he leapt to Suave's defense, though.

Nuwen, for somebody who accused Geek of muddying the waters, has done a fine job of muddying the waters herself. She refused to answer a question from Geek - one that wouldn't have done any harm, had she answered it straight away - and then used his attempt to bring it up again to accuse him of 'muddying the waters'. How does it do this? I would've done the same.

Also, Nuwen, can you demonstrate how Geek has been fishing for info?

[julienvonwolfe]

The whole thing between Nuwen and geek seems to have dissolved into 'no, you!' kind of shit. It took a bit of effort to follow their little back-and-forth.


The boring bit:

MrSuave: How old are you, and how long have you been playing Mafia?

A reasonable question. No problems here.

what does my age hav to do with anything?
and my startdate is under my pic. and if you must know, I was never in a noobie game. ever. But I have played RL mafia before this forum mafia. and again, what does that have to do with anything in this game?

I asked a question and I expect an answer, not an evasion. Learning fringe information about other players rims their posts with context.

How many games have you played on MS? My search page is doing that refresh blank thing.

Okay, so she wants to know fringe information in order to help establish a read. Fair enough.

Because the tone and style of your posts sounds like a gerbil on amphetamines, and your age might reveal whether that's hyperactivity or game-relevant jitters. I'm assuming that since it's such a big deal, you're quite young. That's fine.

I'm not quite seeing what you can necessarily garner from MrSuave's age... Age doesn't necessarily translate into hyperactivity that could be used to excuse the jitteriness that MrSuave is exhibiting. Additionally, players within the same age range can have totally different levels of composure in the game, so I don't really think age can be counted in weighing scum tells. I think it's the player's personality in general that helps in weighing.

Geek wades in with a post that basically tells Nuwen off for collecting fringe info. I think he's missing the point, and possibly taking it personally; if Suave was indeed a hyperactive 13-year-old, that would be useful information, and as such, I think Nuwen's original enquiry of Suave was fine. However, Geek does make a good point that not all people of the same age are equal.

Interestingly, it does come across as a bit of a Suave defense, come to think of it. Geek, why did you feel the need to contribute this?

I never said the behavior was alignment-indicative, only that I didn't know whether is was specific to this game or a general floozyness. Do you think my inquiry is scummy?

Nuwen replies in a manner that I approve of.

Then why did you want to know age if you didn't think it was alignment indicative...? I still don't see how age in particular is related to judging a person's particular posting style. For example, according to MrSuave's information, I'm in the same age range as him. How does that bit of information now help you in analyzing me?

Geek shows that he continues to miss the point. But here's the interesting bit:

1. From a scum perspective, Iam's vote on Geek would make little sense - he placed it early, without case material to stand on. The intent obviously comes from a non-scum faction pressuring out more information, prioritizing scum hunting over personal appearance.

Nuwen, I'm not seeing why scum wouldn't do this. IAUN's vote was basically at the tail end of the RVS in my opinion (see Hoopla's later Suave vote), and as such, didn't need a heck of a lot of reasoning behind it. I can see why he made it, though, if he is town.


Here's where they both accuse each other of the same thing:

2. Geek's posts fish for any information, any material, regardless of whether it's alignment indicative. Even after I declined to answer his post 72, he continued to push the age issue.

I've been wondering why you're fishing for information that I feel is irrelevant to the game, Nuwen, and that you admit is alignment non-indicative. Why ask a question if you don't feel that it's pertinent to scum finding? I wanted to give you more of a chance to reply to my line of thought before I deemed your question scummy. So yes, I do feel that it's scummy.

Geek just seems to have taken the whole age thing a bit personally, and to have missed the point to Nuwen's original question as a result. I would like him to explain why he leapt to Suave's defense, though.

Nuwen, for somebody who accused Geek of muddying the waters, has done a fine job of muddying the waters herself. She refused to answer a question from Geek - one that wouldn't have done any harm, had she answered it straight away - and then used his attempt to bring it up again to accuse him of 'muddying the waters'. How does it do this? I would've done the same.

Also, Nuwen, can you demonstrate how Geek has been fishing for info?

[julienvonwolfe]

erm, double post fail. Sorry.

[julienvonwolfe]

Well, it was the most significant thing in the thread to date, and spurred at least a few votes - eg. IAUN's, and Nuwen's.

Would you have chosen to ignore it? What do you think of my analysis? Do you disagree with my conclusions?

[julienvonwolfe]

I like most of julien's post. He articulates well the issue: Nuwen asked for fringe information, Geek asked Nuwen why Nuwen wanted fringe information, Nuwen held off answering until Geek said Nuwen was scummy. I have a different read on why that back and forth resolved the way it did, however:

1. I took care to explain that I didn't think age was relevant to alignment. This is key. Because I emphasized that the information would contribute to a personality baseline,

not act as case material

, trying to call that act scummy is scummy unto itself. Geek is painting an alignment-neutral action in a negative light.

2. The difference between Nuwen's qualms with Geek and Geek's qualms with Nuwen:

1. Nuwen asks for alignment-independent info.
   
2. Geek inquires why (alignment independent
   so far
   ) Nuwen wants info if it won't be used to hunt scum.
   
3. Nuwen wonders aloud why Geek cares, since the information won't be used in a case (this is the regression that julien pointed out, where our problems with each other seem identical)
   
4. Geek commits to a stance and says Nuwen is scummy for fishing out information that isn't indicative of alignment (here's were Geek becomes scummy - not because he believes I'm scummy, but because he's opportunistically using an alignment neutral action as fuel for a case)

The reasoning is confusing and seems similar. The timing is important. In retrospect, it appears that Geek was looking for a foothold with which he could build a case.

I'll wait to see what Geek says before giving any more of my own thoughts. Your position is reasonable, though.


Now, for all, here's how Suave plays as scum:

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... c&&start=0

Based on this game alone I feel like policy-lynching the bugger for being unreadable, at least to me. I ended up thinking the whole game that he was newb-town, but he ended up being newb-scum.

However, this is a bit irrational on my part, so instead I'm just going to keep a close eye on Suave, and not make the same mistake again. I have learnt that noobiness plus hyperactive gerbil posting doesn't always equal town, and so will be much more willing for a Suave lynch this time. Basically, to get my eye off him, he'll have to be onto it with his voting patterns and scumhunting techniques.

[julienvonwolfe]

Surely you noticed how I followed that statement with 'but that's irrational..."?

The reason that I couldn't get a read was because of the "newbie vs scum" conumdrum. Now that he's no longer a newb, he doesn't have any excuse for scummy behaviour.

[julienvonwolfe]

Interestingly, it does come across as a bit of a Suave defense, come to think of it. Geek, why did you feel the need to contribute this?

Because I felt that Nuwen was fishing for irrelevant information on a player and that made me suspicious enough to ask her about it.

And why did it make you suspicious?

MrSuave, please don't use excessive emoticons, because it always makes me more suspicious of you.

Coaching, much?

[julienvonwolfe]

that seems oddly solicitous of you.

[julienvonwolfe]

It seems well explained to me, ML.

[julienvonwolfe]

HAHA, I just got that! I see what you did thar! xD but again, the question I must ask is... are you scum? O_o

What will this achieve?

[julienvonwolfe]

just a note to say that I will have limited activity until the weekend.

[julienvonwolfe]

Back now. And I read the thread to find it filled with walls of text. Geez, people.

I still like my Suave vote and see no reason to change it.

I find mafia to be more about philosophy than posting walls of text. Symbol, is your wordy style an attempt to distract the town and encourage them not to read?

[julienvonwolfe]

I find mafia to be more about philosophy than posting walls of text. Symbol, is your wordy style an attempt to distract the town and encourage them not to read?

And what is your iso 7 but a recap of an argument with approximately 3 questions buried within? Seriously, you're suggesting that anything that Symbol wrote clogs the thread more and scummier than you did in that post?

You have to admit that that was just one post, compared to Symbol's more prodigious output.

Anyway, I can see the case for Geek, and it's not bad. I just don't want to give Suave the same opportunity that he took advantage of last time - and he's been lurking lately.

Also, something seems off to me about Reck, and I'm not sure why. I'll take another look through his posts later.

[julienvonwolfe]

Sorry I haven't been around. As I said in the newbie game I'm ICing, long weekend holiday crazies and then I started a new job. I'll post something better tomorrow, but this thing by Nuwen caught my eye, when she asked why I meant by asking this:

HAHA, I just got that! I see what you did thar! xD but again, the question I must ask is... are you scum? O_o

What will this achieve?

Suave asking Hoopla if she was scum seems supremely useless to me. Hence, I asked what asking her if she was scum would achieve.

[julienvonwolfe]

Right, I've read through the thread. I can see why people take issue with my play - I admit that I've not devoted as much attention to this game as I could've, and so I apologise. I will try to be better.

I can see why a townie-Nuwen would want to policy-lynch, but surely that's not good scum-hunting. I can't see why townie-Hoopla or scum-Hoopla would want to wagon like that, though. Hoopla?

You have to admit that that was just one post, compared to Symbol's more prodigious output.

I can admit that, but I challenge you to find a single post of Symbol's that was as long and useless as yours.

My post was very early in the game when there wasn't much to go on, and it was an attempt to sum up what seemed to me quite a hard-to-follow argument between Geek and Nuwen. I don't think it was useless.

I was just persuing Hoopla because her town play seemed VERY different from the game I played with her previously.

I see similarities between her play there and here. Who else do you think is suspicious, now?

[julienvonwolfe]

Things I'm waiting for

Geek to get replaced.
Symbol to explain why he thinks that the threat of "List of suspects or die" is equivalent to random fishing.
Reck and tubby to explain why they wagoned Geek after it was stated that he was getting replaced.
Zaz to give a pro-town reason for anything he's done so far.

symbol and suave are far more summy than me, suave cause i don't think his posts are town motivated, and

symbol is trying to hard to be town

.

Re: Symbol, how is "trying hard to be town" a scumtell?

no your twisting

Replying in more than three words is generally courteous.


Suave hasn't replied to my last post so my vote stays.

[julienvonwolfe]

daykill RECK

Tubby, you're being irrational. Can you demonstrate how Symbol's posts are scummy?

[julienvonwolfe]

right now I think that xRECKONERx is pretty sketchy with his wanting to just policy lynch me for no reason, but that might be a bit of OMGUS

And throughout all of this, there is nothing from Suave...

[julienvonwolfe]

Also, I would never lynch you tubby.

Are you being serious here?

[julienvonwolfe]

Apologies for what might be a bit of a wall of text:

@ Torqez:

But anyway....that aside... the thing I want to comment on most is Hoopla's proposal of randomly lynching anybody.

I somewhat agree with this, but largely not.

I am currently playing another game where I make a similar suggestion for Day 1 - but with a

KEY

difference. As opposed to randomly lynching someone, I argue to put someone at L-1 who I feel a suspect as scum. This way (just like Hoopla said) it pressures ppl to change votes, defend, or just argue their PoV earlier or with pressure. I have no qualms about lynching someone I suspect for gaining more information going into Day 2. Howeveve, like I said - this is for someone with scummy behaviour or just appears to be scummy (gut feeling even).

Reason for this, is that I find often, on Day 1, people can take pretty much anybody and drill down so much into 1 (or couple/few/several) things that can be used to justify lynch votes - and probably largely incorrectly. So I don't think it matters 'that' much. But I do like to see who changes votes and when - and think this information is vital.

That being said, I think just 'randomly' voting for anybody doesn't serve the same purpose. And suggestion of the idea, could even be made to draw attention away from our current lines of thinking....

Vote: Hoopla

Bolding with italics mine. It sounds to me like you largely agree with it, with just a small difference. Surely on the way to randomly lynching somebody, they get put at L-1? And even if we had started following Hoopla's plan, I can't see people being eager to complete the random lynch - there would have been discussion at L-1.

So your vote for Hoopla is shaky, to me. Obviously, you felt the same, because you changed it pretty soon after by following Symbol:

That post seems to sum it up well for me. I'm still not entirely convinced and I'd think Nuwen you have some explaining to do to clarify the situation for at least me. I don't really understand the reasoning behind your last post about 'gut feelings'. How can you lynch someone on D1 without a feeling or some sort of inkling that they act scummy?

Anyway, for now I'm gonna change my vote. Nuwen, please try to clear it up for me.

Unvote, Vote: Nuwen

and I still FoS Hoopla - but in irony these votes may end up all random in any case :/

And even here, you express the sentiment that your vote is dependent on Nuwen's 'clearing it up'.

You seem a bit nervous about where to put your vote. Would you agree with this?

----

@ Erik:

I also don't like how Reck is setting up a chain lynch like that with his little chant thing. Seems like a good way to get two free mislynches, if we assume he's scum and Tubby/Suave are not.

Do you really read it as a proposal for a chain lynch?

----

@ Suave, Suave, Suave, Suave:

DO SOMETHING

[julienvonwolfe]

Whut

Yeah, if there is scum on my wagon, I have a feeling that one is still on my wagon, and the others have bailed.

Whooo, unfounded claims!
Back on the Suave wagon!

Unvote, Vote: Suave

fine

unvote, vote suave

Are you two just joking around here or what?

[julienvonwolfe]

And even here, you express the sentiment that your vote is dependent on Nuwen's 'clearing it up'.

You seem a bit nervous about where to put your vote. Would you agree with this?

Ya ofcourse. Because I'm not sure of who exactly scum is. Especially since I replaced into the game, it's hard to fully judge people based on no interraction. Example, this is the first dialogue i'm having with you even. Hence I vote for who I think is suspicious.

How about yourself? Are you not nervous about your vote? Why the vote for suave in your eyes? How sure are you? How sure can you get D1?

I'm not sure you understand what I asked.

I'm perfectly happy voting for Suave since he's lurking and has made no pro-town contribution. Perfectly valid reasons to vote somebody - and the clincher is that the last time he played like this, he was scum. So yeah, I'm happy with my vote.

What I meant by asking you if you were nervous about your vote, is that you have shifted around and don't seem very sure about it - perhaps because you are nervous about coming under scrutiny? What makes Nuwen so much worse than Hoopla - particularly since you even said that you weren't convinced by Symbol's case?

[julienvonwolfe]

Unvote. Vote: Hoopla.

Hoopla/Nuwen/Tubby is the play.

Why do you ignore Suave?

[julienvonwolfe]

Erik, can you explain why you think people who set up chain lynches are scummy?

[julienvonwolfe]

Huh.

I'm perfectly happy voting for Suave since he's lurking and has made no pro-town contribution. Perfectly valid reasons to vote somebody - and the clincher is that the last time he played like this, he was scum. So yeah, I'm happy with my vote.

Does this ring scummy to anyone else?

Why is it scummy?

[julienvonwolfe]

Pfft.

I support a JVW wagon, at the very least.

Unvote. Vote: julienvonwolfe.

He's been actively lurking 90% of the game and his lazy obsession with a Suave lynch is crap (as is everyone else's).

I'm hardly obsessed with Suave. Recently I've been finding Torqez to be suspicious.

RECK, I know you are online. Vote for JVW.

Vote: JVW

What nonsense is this?

Macavity, that does sound reasonable to me. I'd like to hear from JVW regarding the whole Suave thing - im not in the least bit convinced.

Unvote. Vote: JVW

But I still have

FoS:

Hoopla, Nuwen

Also, @ tubby ...that last post of yours is extremely odd... Deadline is only 5 days away (not much in context of the whole day 1...) ...and your pushing for 2 extra votes for the sake of it? :s

You shamelessly hop on another wagon, and then find it strange that another player asks for more votes?


---

Can someone please explain the case against Suave?

JVW's been on the Suave-wagon for approx as long as me, and as I think there are more people questioning him than me, I'm of the opinion that it would be useful to hear his Suave case first. I am certainly willing to make the case, and if people like I can make that case no matter whether JVW does or not. But I do think it would be more useful to hold mine until JVW's. Does this seem reasonable?

I've given my Suave case already. Symbol accuses me of active lurking, which is ridiculous when compared to the way Suave coasts through the game doing nothing of note.

And I think my usage of meta is valid. The last time I played Suave, I wrote him off as newb-town, but he was scum. I'm not going to make the same mistake again - and so far he's done nothing to convince me that he's town.

[julienvonwolfe]

I've given my Suave case already.

Awesome. Point it out please. Give us a nice one post recap including quotes.

I'm perfectly happy voting for Suave since he's lurking and has made no pro-town contribution.

Then, of course, there was the meta I have on him.

Finally, Suave has had all game to try and get my vote off him by being pro-town, but he hasn't. He's lurked, he's made a BS case on Hoopla, he lurked some more, and he comes back to reiterate the BS case on Hoopla. Sheesh.

He's done quite literally nothing pro-town. He hasn't scum-hunted, he's added nothing to the game. Note that this is distinct from actively being anti-town.

Can you explain how?

[julienvonwolfe]

But Hoopla was similar in that game as well - for example, when she supported my lynch on day two.

[julienvonwolfe]

don't like how he's defending Hoopla in the last post 522, don't like how his case on Suave doesn't have any merit ("Oh, he's attacking the person I'm defending, ergo he is scum").

You, sir, need a good slap over the head. Kindly note the timeline of events:

Starting point: Mr Suave's stupid Hoopla case. I responded to it quite early, though I think Suave ignored me.

I was just persuing Hoopla because her town play seemed VERY different from the game I played with her previously.

I see similarities between her play there and here. Who else do you think is suspicious, now?

Later on, in 502, ML asks me to recap my Suave case. In 519 I mention Suave's BS case on Hoopla. Suave proceeds to repeat said BS case. In 522, I rebut it by showing how she played in a manner that could be considered similar to this game.

How do you read that as a defense of Hoopla over and above the purpose it serves as a means of attacking Mr. Suave?

[julienvonwolfe]

Erik, I would appreciate a reply to my 528, since I think your vote is unjustified.

[julienvonwolfe]

I was just persuing Hoopla because her town play seemed VERY different from the game I played with her previously.

I see similarities between her play there and here. Who else do you think is suspicious, now?

You're implying that the fact that you can see similarities (which is really an exaggeration, since you've only pointed out ONE similarity -- more on this after the jump) means Suave can't see differences. And then you ask an unrelated question asking for a scumlist. I don't see how this post is calling Suave's case stupid.

Well, to be fair, I didn't call it stupid. If Mr. Suave truly believed what he was saying, though, why didn't he try to argue his case?

Later on, in 502, ML asks me to recap my Suave case. In 519 I mention Suave's BS case on Hoopla. Suave proceeds to repeat said BS case. In 522, I rebut it by showing how she played in a manner that could be considered similar to this game.

How do you read that as a defense of Hoopla over and above the purpose it serves as a means of attacking Mr. Suave?

By calling the case against Hoopla BS without doing any real work to show HOW it's BS. In 522, you showed one single piece of meta information from that game to refute Suave's entire case. But you can find any single piece of information between two games of any player and be able to mash it in place to suit your needs, as long as you're willing to ignore all the information to the contrary. You need more than just one single event to make a meta case. Suave has more than one event, he has patterns of behavior, an entirely different playstyle. It's not a perfect case, but it's definitely less BS than what you're trying to use to dismiss it.

Erik, way to shift the boundaries! Now you're completely on Mr. Suave's side, supporting his case, and putting the burden of proof on me to prove that Hoopla's play is the same - why isn't it upon Mr. Suave to show that it is different, since he's the one trying to use it as an attack on her?

Not to mention that you didn't seem to register my post as an attack on Mr. Suave's argument in your initial post:

Did my isoread, don't like it, don't like how he's defending Hoopla in the last post 522, don't like how his case on Suave doesn't have any merit ("Oh, he's attacking the person I'm defending, ergo he is scum").

Yet in reading your reply to my post explaining the intent of my post regarding Hoopla, you would never guess that you had missed the whole point of the argument in your previous post - it was not a chainsaw defense at all. Back to your original read: why didn't you like my defense of Hoopla?

Fuck it, I'm going to go through that game and find stuff now. This pisses me off.

[julienvonwolfe]

This post will be a bit of a wall of text due to massive numbers of quotes, and may not interest a lot of people. Sorry. I guess I understand how Symbol works, now.

I'm going to point out similarities between Hoopla's play in Mini 813 and this game, which should justify calling Suave's case BS. Suave is welcome to point out differences, but I get the feeling he'll be too lazy to.

Comparing and contrasting her play in the two games is made difficult by the fact that we're not even through Day One in this game, and yet the other game is finished. Thus, there is more to choose from in the other game. Interestingly, I now agree slightly with Mr. Suave in that she played in a more serious, analytical manner on day one in that game, with longer posts, and hasn't in this game. However, it's also true that got it wrong quite a lot in that game. Kravhen, for example, wasn't scum; Suave was newbscum, not newbtown. And, I believe that Suave is ignoring other similarities in her play that deserve note; he contrasts elements of her play in this game to that game, but elements of this same playstyle exist in the other other game. Find examples from both games in the first category, listed below.

Secondly, I dispute that she has not acted in a manner designed, if not to be analytical, at least to scum-hunt and be pro-town in this game. I have found some examples from this game and compared them to examples from Mini 813 in the second category.

First category: Acting the Goat

These are posts which I feel to be joking, possibly less than focussed on the game, and not always designed to find scum - as Hoopla even admits in one of them. Otherwise, they may contain little reasoning, or outright lies. I've purposely tried to leave most, if not all of the RVS stage since most people act jokingly there.

This game:

third person on the wagon Hoopla? and why are you promoting iamausername's wagon? both are noted.

Why aren't you helping?

@Hoopla

Why are you being so defensive Hoopla? You're waaaay more agressive thi game. For seriously. I don't know what changed from when you were a nice supportive obv-town in Korlash, to being this angry defensive girl in... where ever we are now. Did something happen to you? Are you mad I won? Is your scum tell being angry and agressive? Are you scum?

No, I am not scum. Are you scum? Please answer my question in exactly two words.

Nope, Hoola, not this time.

How likely are these "are you scum" questions to get any useful response?

Not likely, I just like to chat.

APPOLOGIES FOR FALLING BEHIND!

I have loads of great thoughts (some about this game), expect some very soon!

It just seems pointless when you can scum-hunt, however dubious day 1 reads are.

Nuwen is scummy.

Nuwen isn't scummy. LOL GOOD INFORMATIONS.

ZAZIE, THANKS SO MUCH FOR MAKING THE THREAD MUCH HARDER FOR A REPLACEMENT TO GET THROUGH AND THN GETTING YOURSELF REPLACED. YOUR A FUCKING STAR.

HAPPY HALOWEEN

Haha, that made me smile.

Also, I would never lynch you tubby.

Mini 813

God, this game is slow.

Mod, prod somebody?

Lets just lynch kravhen.

Vote: Nikanor

(Though later justified thusly:)

Vote: Nikanor

Elaborate please.

He's part if the pool of three players I rank scummiest - but this is mainly due to my town reads. I ackowledge my vote is relatively weak.

So I don't like 48 hours of inactivity. Would some threat of deadline motivate some actions or is some sort of mass jab-with-stick in order?

*paces nervously*

Post some erotic pictures and I will be more active.

Okay, with this new information, I think I've figured it out.

Vote: julienvonwolfe

---

Second Category: Not Acting The Goat

From this Game:

Why are you so keen to claim?

Hoopla, thoughts on MrSuave?

He's silly. I just finished another game with him recently where he was scum, and I foolishly played him the newb-town card which he milked for all it was worth. From Day 2 onward he did not help the town, and did not bring any unique thoughts to the game, and made no attempt to look for suspects. He lurked, was illogical, and non-committal.

He seems to be making more of an effort here, but I expect he would as town or scum, as he knows he won't ever get dealt the newbie card again. I don't have a read on him either way.

I don't see what's so hard to follow. What, exactly, would you expect to discern from someone's response to "Why so eager to claim?" besides an idea of what their role is? Are scum supposed to be more or less eager to claim than townies?

(This question also goes to Hoopla, for obvious reasons.)

I don't think so, but claiming so early is not a situation we need. It was more a question to probe MrSuave's understanding of the claiming process. Recently (ongoing game) a player claimed after a two-vote wagon at the start of day 3. It was not a necessary claim.

Hi Hoopla.

Hello possum, have you enjoyed your return to mafia so far?

well I'm gonna say this right now... from when I played with Hoopla as her being town and her now, her play style seems a lot more random and not very logical. go to that game that JW linked to, to see what I'm talking about.

OOOH. And your playstyle is exactly the same that game!

To me, asking why he's so keen to claim is an attempt to lure information out about whether or not he has a power role.

It's not exactly a question that furthers a claiming opportunity, to me. I don't understand your position after your explanations, so I won't bother. I can assure you my question stemmed from curiousity of Suave wishing to claim.

Admittedly, her other posts from this game seem to either be about her random vote scheme (more on that later) or of the joking type.

From Mini 813

Hm... DID SOMEONE SAY HOOPLA WAGON!?!?!
OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!! BURRRRN 'IM AT THE STAKE!!! xD
YAAAARRRRR!!!! *waves a torch*
wait... what's that? we don't have a stake...? O_O... we lynch... D=
bah, that's okay too.... HANG 'IM!!! xD

Vote: Hoopla

That was annoying to read, you aren't suave at all. In my experiences, I find it a suspicious trait to act chummy and unprovoking early on - particularly for newer players. Sure, it's a generic tell, but this is where I'm going now.

Unvote
Vote: MrSuave

Why are you unvoting so quickly? You really don't want to provoke anyone, do you?

no, I don't really like anyone mad at me D=. and I don't want my first game to only last like.... not even a week... or something

Would you say you're more concerned about self-preservation than catching scum at this stage?

You know what, you talk a lot without ever really saying anything worthwhile. For anyone else that wants to see what I mean, read kravhen's posts in isolation (in particular his analysis post) - it really is just fluff.

I'm going to color-code my response to kravhen, so y'all can tell what I'm responding to in each paragraph.

I guess I should revise the game setup a bit more next time lol.... but at the moment of my analysis, I thought there was 4 votes on Julien (that's the maximum he had been at at that point, right?). Furthermore, I thought we needed 5-6 votes to lynch, not 7. I guess that's my mistake for not counting the number of players and figure out the majority. Since the mod never wrote the number needed for a lynch and since at that point only about a handful of people were talking with the rest staying silent and invisible like ghosts, it felt like a smaller game. It's as simple as that.

I put an analysis on page 6, so when I write someone is suspicious it doesn't mean i want a lynch on them. They're simply the top suspicious on my radar at that point, that's all.

As for building a case on Julien and then voting MrSuave, or rather, as for saying MrSuave shouldnt be lynched and then voting for him, I don't think that's ''hypocritical'' of me. I very well explained I did not want a quick lynch and expected the day to last longer. If there was almost no votes on Julien I might've put mine on him, but I thought there was already a bunch of people on Julien and its not like i wanted to lynch there and then so...

That's when I thought I'd vote MrSuave. It ticks me off that I haven't set my mind on if his behavior is genuine noobiness(no offense) or not. So I thought a vote would make him talk more, maybe get shaky, drop the facade, who knows? It was a pressure vote.

I refuse to accept laziness, stupidity or not paying attention as an excuse for a vote (or lack of vote). If you really thought Julien was feasibly at L-1 or L-2, surely you would check, without jumping to the (wrong) conclusion he was close to lynched.

Your excuse for voting MrSuave is inadequate. A pressure vote because you want him to talk more doesn't work, when at the time he was one of the most active players. You still dodged the hypocrisy I noted in my 167, and I'd like you to respond to it properly;

@MrSuave:

I'm undecided about this guy. I mean he's a newbie at online mafia but I'm yet not sure if he's overplaying the newbie card just yet. I reserve my own opinion on whether or not I take his 'slip' as an actual claim or not for now since I don't wanna delve into that whole role conversation.

He seemed strictly innocent until he stacked a 3rd vote on Julien

. Either he's a newbie and he's just being a mannequin doin' whatever we tell him to because he feels like he should 'obey the town' or he's scum looking to take the opportunity to stack the vote after being pressured to. I'll remember that he was the 3rd person on Julien's wagon.

Bottomline: Not enough reason to lynch MrSuave today.

I've bolded the two important bits. It's strange he can find suspicion in MrSuave for voting Julien (his prime suspect), but if you actually look at MrSuave's vote;

so you guys want real answers and things? well for one thing, I would have stopped talking about doctors if julien . and if I understand the whole 'role fishing' thing,

I would have to agree that julien did seem overly interested if I was claiming to be a doctor, which I wasn't.

Vote: julienvonwolfe

And now compare that to what krahven, himself, thinks of Julien;

@Julienwolfe:
Sir wagon. I've expressed that I've gotten scummy vibes from him before in this thread (around page 4 I think), and this still holds.

He's the one who sparked and sustained the talk on doctors for wayyy too long, after picking up on the tell at the speed of lightning.

I think the wagon on Julien is a healthy one at this point.

You generated your suspicion for MrSuave on his vote for Julien, but his reasoning was EXACTLY the same as yours for your suspicion of Julien. But then, you backed down in your justification by saying this;

That's when I thought I'd vote MrSuave. It ticks me off that I haven't set my mind on if his behavior is genuine noobiness(no offense) or not. So I thought a vote would make him talk more, maybe get shaky, drop the facade, who knows?

It was a pressure vote.

So my question is now, which of the following is true;

You lied initially and weren't suspicious of MrSuave's vote for Julien, and your vote was genuinely for pressure.
Your vote for MrSuave was because you found him suspicious of his vote for Julien, and for some reason you're lying about it now being a pressure vote.

If you're worried, have a cop of tracker of whatever scan me tonight :3

This reeks of Godfather play.

QFT

Someone vig this guy.

Well, I still stand by my hypothesis that one of the two major wagons yesterday was scum (Cojin, obviously) and the other was a distraction/scum-driven. (Though if I had been forced to make a snap decision, I probably would have sided against Kravhen)

Excuse me Nab, can you link me to this hypothesis? I'm blind and can't find anything you're refering to here.

Can you also explain how these wagons mutually depend on each other? Because it just sounds like guesswork to me (especially if stated yesterday). If anything, kravhen's awkward behaviour around Cojin's wagon smelt of scum nervously contemplating a bus or not (I'll post more on this soon).

The last mini I played that had a similar start (two major competing wagons D1) was your predecessor q21's game. In this game, Simpor and Salem (both scum) were the two wagon choices. The third scum KoC, voted Simpor, and refused to change his vote to Salem after Simpor's wagon died. Salem was the lynch, and KoC was then lynched the next day for this behaviour toward the wagons. Simpor then went on to win the game, barely being questioned, because we discarded his wagon as a distraction, or an alternate to Salem's lynch.

My point is, alternate wagons to a scum bandwagon shouldn't automatically be discounted. I don't think kravhen's wagon was a distraction. He was pulled up for hypocritical logic and bad excuses, and seemed a very pro-town cause from multiple players.

That would be the only way to kill me if I were godfather, yes.

Thing is, I'm not.

Not really. Very few Godfathers have NK immunity - from what I've seen. Immunity to investigations is the standard.

---

Third Category: Crazy Schemes That Might Just Work

Hoopla in Mini 813 proposed a scheme for ranking our reads with a point system. In this game, she proposed that we lynch randomly. In each, she made several posts justifying it.

Here is her post from this game:

My proposal: We lynch randomly today.

Recently I've been taking the position in a few of my games that as far as lynching scum Day 1 is concerned, we have little chance above random. Nearly all information available in thread is subjective, and often it seems the person who is the weakest debater, or least experienced is killed. I think a lot of people agree, Day 1 is mostly valuable for information on voting records and ties between players, than a genuine opportunity to find scum.

So, I propose we lynch randomly today. The information we get prior to the random event is still there, and still genuine, and I would suggest we actually have a better chance of lynching scum today*, without too heavily impacting our chances for future days.

I think many players have a tendancy to overvalue their personal reads, especially on Day 1. We have a strong player list this game, and I know firsthand how talented some are as scum. I don't expect to lynch scum today, and I don't expect to develop any strong pro-town reads today either. Lynching randomly gives us an opportunity to create an event potentially uncomfortable and unseen from scum. A flip from someone very unlikely to be lynched today will seem a lot more valuable to me tomorrow, than some of the choices we've suggested so far.


* Of the last 3:9 closed Mini Normals, mafia were only lynched 13 times out of 64 on Day 1.

And Mini 813:

Hi julien, right now I would hedge my bets on falko, Nikanor or dramonic being the last scum(s). Outside chances are kravhen and yourself. However, spending most of my day campaigning for kravhen, I want to spend more time reading up on these three to reassure my thoughts.

I think this game has been a lot easier to spot town players, at least for me. Yellowbunny and NabNab have made enough solid, clear, pro-town contributions and I don't believe them to be scum. MrSuave is town also, but for different reasons.

--

But now, I have a proposal I want to make to the town. It may hurt your eyes:


All of you will quite likely have varying techniques when it comes to hunting scum - and the same with how you process and format that data in your head. At the start of the game, we give every player equal odds of being scum in our mind, and everything we read and discover fluctuates those odds - even if we can't always physically quantify them.

To help explain what I'm trying to say a little better (and some players use similar methods to find scum), imagine each player starts with 50 points, representing neutral. Over the course of the game, you track scumminess by adding or deducting points from each player depending on their actions.

For example; a player may make an ill-timed vote. Using a relative scoring system, that might add 8 points to that player (more points equalling a high chance of being scum). But it would automatically deduct 1 point from each other player (if there were 8 other players). It works both ways too. A player committing a town action might deduct X amount of points. Then X amount of points need to be divided up amongst the other players in contrast and added to their score.

For a player to be scummy, other players will naturally look slightly townier to restore the balance. It's a matter of contrast, and your brain always does it to assess towniness/scuminess, even if you don't know the percentages.


Some scenarios may see the scumminess isolated in one or two players, and townieness spread staggeringly. Using the point system, it might look something like this;

75, 70, 55, 50, 40, 40, 40, 40


Sometimes you might get inverted patterns where you can easily spot town players, but scum are difficult to see;

60, 65, 55, 55, 55, 50, 30, 30


When you have a confirmed townie in the mix, it narrows the scumpool and means all other players have a higher than normal chance of being scum;

70, 60, 60, 60, 55, 50, 45, 0


And so on.

Whatever system you use to assess suspicion, your brain is distributing suspicion/towniness in these sort fluctuating graphs of percentages - even if you don't realize it. Human perception is great like that, and will always see things in contrast. Especially in a game of mafia.

Anyway, if you're still reading this, I suppose you're wondering where I'm going with it all. Well, I'm glad you stuck with me because I am currently in a position to say, I think town players are currently more outstanding than the remaining scum, like I showed in one of my previous examples of numbers.

Not including myself on this list, I think our game right now looks something like this;

65, 65, 65, 60, 55, 50, 40, 25, 25


This reflects the current spread of suspicion I have generated.

At this stage, if you understand what I'm saying, I'd appreciate a representation of the spread of suspicion according to you.

I feel it is an underrated tactic, and something that should be pursued by towns, that

if

one or two players appear overwhelmingly town to the majority players, they should be designated with more power, for example; an extra vote taken from the pool of scummier players.

The best way for towns to win, is by ensuring scum players have less influence in the game. It's always true that before a deadline, you never want to lynch with just 2-3 votes because you can't reach a consensus, as this leaves power in too few hands (bad). The town's strength is that they outnumber the scum - and it is theoretically possible for town to improve their chances by shifting power from a possible scum pool to more townier players.

In conclusion,

if

the town cooperates with my request (bolded above), and

if

we find one or two players that the majority see as town or very town, I propose we appoint a psuedo-mayor for the town and issue them an extra vote. I see this as a potential slight boost for town's win chances. Thoughts/questions/criticisms?

---

And so:

Mr. Suave has been allowed to make a "Hoopla played differently in that game" case all game. Yet, when I made a "Hoopla's play's not all that different" argument against Suave, Erik decides that I need to post evidence. Why not the other way around?

Finally, this might be interpreted as a Hoopla defense, since she was town in that game and I've just argued that she's playing similarly in this. However, I've WIFOMed myself quite substantially, and I'm not sure what I think now. Hoopla is a good enough player that she should be able to make use of meta, for one thing. And, I might be reading it completely wrong.

[julienvonwolfe]

That was a reference to this:

I find mafia to be more about philosophy than posting walls of text. Symbol, is your wordy style an attempt to distract the town and encourage them not to read?

[julienvonwolfe]

Well, to be fair, I didn't call it stupid. If Mr. Suave truly believed what he was saying, though, why didn't he try to argue his case?

See 528. "Starting point: Mr Suave's stupid Hoopla case." You did call it stupid in that post, while referring me to the post I quoted above as proof, proof I didn't understand and still don't. But I can see how I might be misconstruing things here. As for your question, newbtown.

But he's hardly a newb now. He's new, but he's won a game.

I put on you only the burden of doing at least as much as Suave did to counteract his case, instead of just waving your hands. It was up to Mr. Suave; he pointed out specifics (not specific quotes, but specific points). You just said "similarities". That's the difference; I didn't call for a huej post like this, or anything other than elaboration of your counterpoint.

My apologies. I hope the huej post suffices.

Back to your original read: why didn't you like my defense of Hoopla?

Because I find Hoopla scummy, and that vague defense inadequate. I guess I did misinterpret that first post.

Why are you still voting me, then? For that matter, why are you defending Suave so tenaciously?

Now, regarding your huge WoT:

You have all sorts of color-coding with no explanation of what it means, and I get the feeling that understanding that is crucial to seeing your point. You also quoted a bunch of posts with almost no analysis. I do not see the similarities you're talking about. Are you saying that, for example, "proposing a random lynch" and "advocating a point system" comprise a similarity or a difference? I see it more as a difference. Could you do a bit of analysis, draw some parallels alongside the quotewall to demonstrate your conclusions instead of presenting the quotes alone? Or, if you did do that inside the quotes through your color scheme (which I find more likely than the no-analysis bit), could you explain that?

Can you seriously not see the similarities between the posts in the different games in the different categories that I posted? I've showed that in both games, she jokes around a bit, maybe too much; she also scumhunts/scumhunted in both; and she also seems to have a propensity for posting radical and unpopular theories, which she has posted in both games. These are the similarities between the games in her play that I see, which is why I think Suave's case is bad.

What more analysis do you want?

[julienvonwolfe]

So Erik, why am I scummy? You've been unclear about the reasons.

[julienvonwolfe]

Good game, scum.

[julienvonwolfe]

Oh, Howard, your modding was admirably solid.

I'm a bit pissed off at just how wrong I was in this game.

[julienvonwolfe]

Let us please keep things civil.

Having said that, I'm not playing with Tubby no more. It's either replacing out or policy-lynching from here on.