Mini 878: Nouns Mafia - Da game is ovah!

[Netopalis]

Confirm'd!

[Netopalis]

Right, then.

Vote: Sensfan

because I always have found his avatar to be oddly unsettling.

[Netopalis]

Because he's been playing mafia since Queen Victoria's infamous gambit in Mini 3?

[Netopalis]

Because it's customary on this site to start a bandwagon against someone for no reason during the first few pages of the game to put pressure on them then watch their reaction. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but there are certain players who will defend it rather vehemently, so I usually just go with it now.

[Netopalis]

As do I, but I usually get attacked for asking for them. I don't bother now....Not until 5th-6th page, anyway.

[Netopalis]

Stranger: Honestly, I think that the whole "vote for pressure" thing, along with the "vote for reaction" thing is rather weak. It only works on new players who don't know what's going on...Anyone who's been through at least a few games, though, should see right through it. I think it's better to put all motives on the table and give the town more information.

Also, I have to say, I find this opennes to be quite refreshing, especially considering another game that I'm currently in.

Vote Count Three

Boxman:

3 (SensFan, Seol, StrangerCoug)

Sens Fan:

3 (Konowa, elvis_knits, Netopalis)

Parhelic

: 2 (MacavityLock, Iecerint)

elvis_knits:

1 (mathcam)

Seol:

1 (Percy)

Netopalis:

1 (Boxman)

Not Voting:

(Parhelic)

Deadline:

Friday November 27th, 12:00 PM EST

[Netopalis]

Generally, I find that posing questions and discussions like this about theme and method are more effective...

[Netopalis]

Sorry, I meant to say setup, not theme.

[Netopalis]

Not always. That being said, I could definitely see it being a problem in this specific one....

[Netopalis]

He doesn't like the fact that I'm going against the common practice of pressure and reaction votes, nor the fact that I suggested setup discussion as a potentially better method of early scumhunting.

[Netopalis]

Fair enough, I retract the statement. I only intended it as a general replacement anyway.

So, just to be clear, you are calling the Boxman vote reasoned? I'll have to reevaluate it, then. I think that the reasoning may be a bit shaky.

[Netopalis]

I'm afraid that I can't link due to the fact that it's ongoing. Suffice it to say, though, it's helped us verify a lot of later claims. It was a theme in which there were a limited number of potential roles, though, so it IS a bit different, I'll admit.

[Netopalis]

Mathcam: Just to be clear, I never said that I actually wanted anyone to discuss setup in this game. I said that it was a potential alternative method of getting the game rolling as opposed to the "put random pressure on a person and see what they do" approach espoused by many players. I find it to be rather unreliable....it really is more of a newbie hunt than a scum hunt. The problem is that there just aren't a whole lot of good alternatives.

[Netopalis]

Alright...I can see the point about going with minimal tells on day one. That being said, I really think we need to hear from Boxman a bit more before continuing - he's at 3 votes and we're not even past page 4.

[Netopalis]

Macavity: It's not dangerously close to a lynch, but it's more than I'd like on such a weak tell.

[Netopalis]

Because 2 is enough for pressure, and I think we all agree that we don't want to lynch him solely on such a weak tell.

[Netopalis]

1) I'm suggesting waiting on him to respond and seeing what arises out of that.
2) He might not have responded because he might not have been online.
3) I was assuming as much because I feel that it makes absolutely no sense to lynch him on such a simple comment.

[Netopalis]

4) Because the votes are votes to lynch. The value of a bandwagon for non-pressure and non-lynch reasons is negligible.
5) Because there's not enough evidence to lynch, but I'm scared that we're pushing down that route.
6) We lose valuable insight into your play in this game. Your lack of reasoning fails to give us more information.

[Netopalis]

Wait a minute. What on earth is the point of bandwagoning if you're not going to lynch or put on pressure? What on earth is the point of any of this? Boxman's one-line post doesn't merit a lynch, and while the pressure idea may have some merit, several people on the bandwagon have discounted the idea. Therefore, I am scummy for trying to stop a purposeless lynch/bandwagon? This does not follow.

[Netopalis]

If they said that the bandwagon was for pressure, I'd be OK with it. However, as Sensfan just said...

*why do you keep trying to imply that the votes on Box are for pressure, when I don't think any of us voting him have said anything like that?

I also think that 3 votes is enough to expect him to show up.

[Netopalis]

Icerint: I was explaining why I felt that the bandwagon was genuine, not attacking Sensfan. In my mind, this whole conversation is going like this:

Me: Uh...I sure hope you're not serious about this lynch....
SF: I am!
Me: Well, if you're serious about your vote and it's not just for pressure, I'm not sure it's really a good idea...
Iec: Why are you assuming his vote is serious and not for pressure?
Me: Well, he said so...
Iec: And now you're attacking him AND contradicting yourself!

Yeah. Perhaps a bit skewed, but I hope it illustrates my point of view. It appears that there are a number of different reasons for people being on this bandwagon, and that by asking about it I've inadvertently turned all of the players against me. I apologize. Honestly, I really hate D1...it doesn't make a great deal of sense to me.

If you're serious about not lynching boxman until we hear back from him, then I guess I'll stop pestering people about it. I still don't get what the point is, though, if it's not for pressure and it's not intended to lynch. Nobody's really made that clear to me.

[Netopalis]

Well, I know that when I'm attacked for little things, I often tend to put games aside. I really hate these little arguments...I know it exacerbates matters, but that's my first reaction. That doesn't mean that pressure should be relieved, it just means that we should ask for a prod...and if he never responds, then replace. He shouldn't be just ignored, but he shouldn't be lynched either - instead, we should simply wait and see what he has to say, then dissect that statement.

[Netopalis]

No...I think it points in favor of scum. That being said, he hasn't lurked THAT long yet.

[Netopalis]

I said put it off, I never said lurk to replacement. I always end up posting...I just put it aside while I work on other stuff, then come back to it after I've had time to mull it over. I have yet to be replaced in a game of Mafia.

[Netopalis]

Not entirely so. I was saying that not responding immediately to pressure is a null tell. Not responding for a great deal of time/until replacement is more of a scum tell, unless the player shows a site-wide pattern of inactivity.

[Netopalis]

Roughly until he's prodded.

Vote Count Sex

Netopalis:

3 (SensFan, Iecerint, Boxman)

Boxman:

3 (mathcam, Seol, StrangerCoug)

Sens Fan:

3 (Konowa, elvis_knits, Netopalis)

Not Voting:

(MacavityLock, Parhelic, Percy)

Deadline:

Friday November 27th, 12:00 PM EST

[Netopalis]

Not acceptable, but not scummy.

[Netopalis]

Konowa: I'm concerned because these 3 votes arose out of nowhere within 5 posts of each other in response to what is, at best, a marginal scumtell.

[Netopalis]

Sure. I'll post scumtells on a page by page basis, then post a summary of all players at the end.

Page 1: Nothing to speak of.
Page 2: Boxman's post is a light scumtell. Not the greatest post in the world. I still don't like the quick bandwagon that arose from it.
Page 3: Seol taking my statements to their most extreme meanings is iffy. I don't know that it's a scumtell, but it's not my preferred style of play. I really don't like Sensfan's admission here that he didn't read the votecount before voting. Seems like it's intentional carelessness. Sensfan and Seol seem to be sticking closely together, but this should only be kept in mind for a possible later day evaluation.
Page 4: StrangerCoug shows some solid, level-headeded reasoning here. Elvis is being forced to explain a lot of things, but is this backpedaling or is it just a response from constant attacks? I'm not sure. I think it's probably the latter.
I also don't like Macavity's 95, in which he posts suspicions without really explaining or backing them up. Seems scummy to me, and even if town, it's the easy way out.
Page 5: Sensfan jumps on the bandwagon without a lot of explanation and defends his original vote on Boxman as being neither for pressure nor for pushing towards a lynch. Just putting a vote out there. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, and I find that in both cases he was trying to go with the flow of the town and nudge them in the direction of their current inertia.
Page 6: Iecrint does seem a bit defensive, as Mathcam pointed out. I don't think it's really that scummy, though - a lot of players react in this fashion.


Individual player analysis:
Boxman - I'd really like to get him back in here to hear his opinions.

Mod: Can we get a prod on him?

I do find it suspicious that he's not shown up, but he's not my biggest scum suspect at this point. That may change.
elvis_knits - I think, overall, he's mostly townie. Sure, there were a few moments where he came under scrutiny, but I think that, again, this is not necessarily a scum tell.
Iecerint - His incessant questioning is annoying and potentially scummy. Alternatively, it could be a playstyle. I'm going to reserve judgment on him until I can see a bit better where he plans on going with all of it.
Konowa - Very little to analyze, really. No comment as of yet.
MacavityLock - Has made several posts which attempt to provide suspicion without content. In my mind, this is scummy and counterproductive. Were we to follow his style, we'd all just be sitting around saying who we suspect and never really building a consensus.
mathcam - I feel that Mathcam's play is fairly reasonable. We may disagree on points of game theory, but I think that he's pretty solidly in my town list.
Parhelic - Has really said nothing. Potentially scummy for that, more likely just inactive.
Percy - Like Parhelic, he's made only 3 posts, none of which are terribly useful. Potentially scummy. Unlike Parhelic, Percy doesn't have as much of an excuse since he's played much more and is currently modding.
SensFan - I find his play inconsistent and his nudging towards extremes to be questionable. In my mind, he's probably the scummiest of all players currently.
Seol - Seol...is a tough read. Potentially scummy, but probably town in my mind. His play is different from SensFan's in the sense that he does back up a lot of his statements with reasoning.
StrangerCoug - Very pro-town and level headed. Not on my list of D1 suspects.


To summarize:

Likely scum:
Boxman
MacavityLock
Sensfan

Inactive:
boxman
Percy
Parhelic

Neutral:
Seol
Konowa

Pro-town:
Elvis (halfway between Neutral and Pro-town)
Mathcam
Strangercoug

[Netopalis]

Konowa: I find the speed at which the town jumped

to such a weak scumtell

to be questionable. I mean, really...the entirety of the reasoning behind the votes is a single post which reads, and I quote:

Wee. Not much going on is there?

[Netopalis]

Also, error in my final summary. Boxman should appear only in the inactive category - I made a bit of an error when copying the front post and dividing it up.

[Netopalis]

Also, error in my final summary. Boxman should appear only in the inactive category - I made a bit of an error when copying the front post and dividing it up.

[Netopalis]

And I can say that because you were the third person on both the Boxman wagon and my wagon.

Vote Count 7

Netopalis:

4 (Konowa, SensFan, Iecerint, Boxman)

Boxman:

4 (elvis_knits, mathcam, Seol, StrangerCoug)

Sens Fan:

1 (Netopalis)

Not Voting:

(MacavityLock, Parhelic, Percy)

Deadline:

Friday November 27th, 12:00 PM EST

Activity Check

further down the page.

[Netopalis]

Withholding reasoning directly hurts the town. If all players withhold reasoning, the game cannot progress. Day 1 is primarily about information, and you are withholding information.

Konowa: That is true. I guess that my thought is that it's best to prod/replace and see what someone else says, rather than just going after an inactive who made a single somewhat-scummy post. He may have forgotten to put it in his watch list or something like that.

[Netopalis]

It's potentially scummy because a lot of your questions were really nitpicky. They seemed to be rather aggressive and, in a few cases, regarding things that just didn't matter. That being said, I only said it was potentially scummy, and it will be reevaluated as you play.

[Netopalis]

No, you don't understand. The thing is....Yes, the action was scummy. Yes, I'd rather he be replaced. Yes, I find the speed disturbing. These things are not mutually exclusive.

[Netopalis]

You may have conflated me and SC a little bit there. I see what you mean, though.

What do you think should be done about Boxman? (Be clear. Don't just say what we "shouldn't" do.) Why do you think he's ignored this game while being active elsewhere?

I wasn't asking specifically about Boxman; I was asking about the general case. Your post 117 implies that you often ignore games in which you are under suspicion, which may imply that you think lurking to replacement is null. It now seems like you're claiming it's null for you, but is scummy in the general case. Is that accurate?

[Netopalis]

I'm all ears if you want to point it out.

[Netopalis]

Hmm....Would it help to say it like this?

I felt that most of the questions were spurious and an attempt to create an issue where there was none. However, I didn't feel confident enough about the motivation in order to specifically state whether it was designed to catch scum or trip up town. This will be evaluated as compared to his play style in the future.

[Netopalis]

I agree with SF...not really a towntell, but perhaps not really a scumtell either. I think that the forgetting was genuine, but I don't want to read that far into it.

[Netopalis]

Well, I was watching Boxman's sig, and it didn't include this game until he posted on here, which lends credibility to the "Forgot about the game" thing. Also, there's no *motivation* to forget about it. It's not a scumtell, but I think we should accept the statement as true at face value.

Vote Count Eight

Netopalis:

4 (Konowa, SensFan, Iecerint, Boxman)

Boxman:

3 (elvis_knits, Seol, StrangerCoug)

Sens Fan:

2 (mathcam, Netopalis)

Not Voting:

(MacavityLock, Parhelic, Percy)

Deadline:

Friday November 27th, 12:00 PM EST

[Netopalis]

He IS partially right in the sense that my posts have not been motivated by OMGUS, but by a genuine belief in scumminess.

[Netopalis]

*shrugs* I started suspecting you because you failed to provide logic, not because you weren't attacking me. You claim that your vote on Boxman was not motivated to lynch, nor was it motivated to pressure. Therefore, you are hiding information regarding your motivation from the town, and I'd really like to know why. I've asked you several times and you've refused to respond. In my mind, this is abjectly scummy behavior.

[Netopalis]

Then what is the value of such a vote, Iec?

[Netopalis]

*why do you keep trying to imply that the votes on Box are for pressure, when I don't think any of us voting him have said anything like that?

4) Why do you keep assuming that anyone wants to lynch someone right now?

The two quotes together seem to be an attempt to discredit the idea that the wagon was for either purpose. Further, I want to know *why* you are refusing to do this. Flatly rejecting to explain your reasoning is not a pro-town move.

You can also stop trying to get me to explain that Boxman vote. I will not be doing it in this game, period.

This bothers me greatly.

[Netopalis]

Just to make it clear - I'm not discrediting votes as "Just for pressure" - I understand that, to some, it is a viable strategy. I just don't see what a person is trying to gain through voting here, that's all.

[Netopalis]

1 and 3 are really designed for pressure. 2 is a viable reason, though.

[Netopalis]

Iecrint: I don't feel that town reads are that detrimental, as any mafia with a reasonable amount of experience and intelligence can see who the frontrunners are for the town and who is going to be less dangerous. Additionally, often times, the mafia will pick off players that may not particularly be townish for other means - I've done that myself and won because of it. The town can't do anything to predict or guide the scum kill, therefore the town should do as much as it can to get as much info out there and do its best when players are killed.

[Netopalis]

If you were a cop, we didn't have a cop head start, so that's inapplicable to this vote. Further, due to the earliness of this discussion, the question of unlynchability doesn't really firm up yet.

[Netopalis]

Slowing an early wagon != scummy. It's simply encouraging the town to be more thoughtful and move with deliberation towards their end goal.

[Netopalis]

*shrugs* I disagree.

[Netopalis]

Well, I think you'd have to prove why slowing a random bandwagon is scummy, honestly.

[Netopalis]

As I've said 3 times now, because it was based on a single, not particularly scummy statement. I mean, honestly...This is probably the most hot water that anyone has ever gotten into for a simple statement of fact that nobody was saying much. Do you *really* think it benefits scum to do that this much? Do you honestly think that it's such an egregious sin that he needs to get halfway to the lynch by the third page? Sure, it's minorly suspicious, but it's not a huge scumtell. It's not as if he came out attacking someone illogic...Oh, wait. That was someone else. Well, it's not like he decided to start tunnel...Oh, wait. Someone else too. Come to think of it, both sound a lot like SensFan right now.

[Netopalis]

To be blunt, I wasn't asking you.

To be blunt, I could

n't

care less.

Also: See rule 12. The both of you.

- Mod

[Netopalis]

And another thing - if you want to see me scumhunt, check out my quick summary of the game with my suspicious in 144. Nobody really looked into it all that much, though.

[Netopalis]

Ok, first off, the quote was a mistake - I added on an "n't" that I didn't mean. It should have said that I was voting Sensfan because I suspected him, not because he was attacking me.

Konowa: You do have a point. But I still will maintain that it's an incredibly, incredibly weak reason to be starting a bandwagon on someone. I have yet to see this really defended all that well. All I have is people just asking me to restate this.

Furthermore, my attack on SensFan is not ad hominem. Ad hominem is an attack due to association. I am not associating SensFan with anything other than the Boxman wagon and I am not attacking two of the other people who were on the Boxman wagon.

Also, this:

You keep claiming my votes have been illogic, when I've explained them both quite clearly. .

You can also stop trying to get me to explain that Boxman vote. I will not be doing it in this game, period.

[Netopalis]

I'm not sure that the first part really changes the second all that much.

[Netopalis]

So, wait, wait, wait. You're saying that there are two messages here.

The first is explaining your vote.

The second is stating that you won't explain your vote.

....

[Netopalis]

I haven't forgotten about Boxman, I'm just waiting for his promised post. I'm not opposed to lynching him if he doesn't show up, though - he doesn't have as much of an excuse now.

[Netopalis]

Konowa: I do see your point...You do have a valid one that it was page 2. I guess I really should have considered that.

And as for my illogical thing on Sens, I guess it was really just a reaction to his stated policy of not giving reasoning/posting his thoughts. In retrospect, I probably should have backed down a bit earlier....But I was attacked in a recent game for backing down on an argument too easily. I guess I'm trying to find the line where backing down isn't considered anti-town play vs. where pressing too doggedly is anti-town play. My apologies....I like things to be very organized and reasoned, and when people just act without explaining themselves in a game that is ostensibly logical, I get nervous. I know that there are many successful players on here who take the same tack...but I don't personally see it. That being said, it probably was a train of thought best suited for MD.

[Netopalis]

Well, a townie who always shows up as scummy isn't much help, are they? They just get in the way....

[Netopalis]

Fair enough, I guess....

[Netopalis]

Well, the other two that I'd look into would be MacavityLock and Iec, as I mentioned earlier. I feel that Iec is being far, far too nitpicky. If you deconstruct anyone's statements far enough, sure, you can back them into a corner. It's called the Socratic Method. I feel, though, that he's using this not as a scumhunting tool, but as an aggression tool to make the town tunnel towards a lynch.

MacavityLock has been on V/LA, but his posts really do show a willingness to go along with whatever everybody else has said. I'm willing to remove this suspicion later and cut him some slack due to the status, but I think it definitely should be noted.

[Netopalis]

Well, in that case, we've given him more than enough chances.

Unvote, vote: Boxman

[Netopalis]

4 me, 5 Boxman.

[Netopalis]

With all due respect, I just spent the last 8 pages going against the flow.

[Netopalis]

Oh, and in response to the townies getting in the way, I was referring to myself, not advocating a policy lynch. Please read it in context with the surrounding bits.

[Netopalis]

Hallelujah! Only a few more to go until we actually have a game going!

[Netopalis]

Oh, and in response to the townies getting in the way, I was referring to myself, not advocating a policy lynch. Please read it in context with the surrounding bits.

This is what I meant. I suspect he read in isolation....Here is what it looks like in context.

...
Also, your primary goal shouldn't be not looking scummy, that's Scum's job. Work on finding Scum, don't worry about if you look good or bad while doing it.

Well, a townie who always shows up as scummy isn't much help, are they? They just get in the way....

I was responding to Sens' point.

[Netopalis]

Mathcam: I started noticing it after I tried to search for him posting in other threads once the point was made. I read through a few of his things to see what his metagame looked like, since I figured he'd be back.

[Netopalis]

You had provided substantially less than Konowa, but I may have a bit of a visibility fallacy on that point since I'm currently playing with him elsewhere. You had more than Percy, and yeah, on my readthrough it looked as if you were me-tooing. You make some good points, though. Boxman should still be the lynch today.

[Netopalis]

BK: I will make two arguments here. First, I felt that there was more backing up the SF wagon at the time that I supported it. The boxman wagon was based on a single throwaway comment. The SF wagon was based on a much more robust body of posts.

Second, I would disagree strongly that I should be the lynch today. The argument that I am scummy for trying to defend Boxman hinges on Boxman being scum. Isn't it backwards to lynch me today?

I also feel that a lot of the case against me is really based on playstyle. I am a cautious player. Wagons made without reasons make me greatly uncomfortable. I am not entirely sure why this makes me scum, though, considering that usually the opposite is seen as scummy as well.

I honestly feel that after I started trying to stop the wagon, anything I did could be seen as scummy. I had people wanting me to do one thing and peoplke wanting me to do something else which was diametrically opposed. Then, I have people being angry at me for bemoaning the fact that I can't seem to make myself seem town as town - something which I have heard others say as well and something which I think is possibly the most useless scumtell ever. This is my case - if you honestly feel that I am scum for defending boxman, then lynch him first. He may turn out as scum. He might not. Either way, though, it's illogical to lynch me today over this.

[Netopalis]

Oh, I see. Honestly, I just missed that. I apologize - it wasn't a conscious decision.

[Netopalis]

If I had realized it, yeah. Carelessness....I figured it wouldn't matter so much since it was page 2 and nobody had really mentioned suspecting him.

[Netopalis]

Neto, literally like 4 players have brought up the disparity between your treatment of SF/BM by this point. Why have you failed to address the issue until now?

Honestly, I thought they were referring to the wagon by, say, page 5 and not on page 2. My mistake, as I said.

[Netopalis]

Well, while I'm here, I might as well claim Vanilla Townie with the noun Stethoscope. Not a doc, as the noun would imply, oddly enough.

[Netopalis]

Well, I think the claim is good, obviously.