Mini 878: Nouns Mafia - Da game is ovah!

[mathcam]

The boxman wagon does not look random to me. It looks to be based on a weak scumtell. I don't know how others see boxman's post 31, but to me it's boxman posting without content, posting without trying to advance the game or scum hunt, and possibly the worst sin of all -- making my sensfan bandwagon look silly!

I'm pretty happy with just "a weak scumtell" for a first-couple-of-pages bandwagon. And as someone else pointed out, you seem to give pretty good reasons to support the wagon anyway. I think I'm missing your point here -- who was arguing that it was entirely random? If Sens weren't around as a second option, would you be for or against the wagon?

The only problem I have with sensfan voting boxman is that it makes the rival bandwagon as big as his own, which switched momentum to someone else.

I'm confused as to why you would have a problem with this. This seems like a pretty reasonable thing for Sens to do.

Well, I know why he doesn't like you, that's obvious. I actually meant to ask seol why he is connecting you to me. I can see him connecting you to boxman since you poo-pooed his boxman wagon. But why you and me are together, or why boxman and me are together, not sure why.

Because you also poo-pooed the boxman wagon?

Happy with my elvis vote.

Cam

Vote Count Four - Unchanged

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

[Percy]

I'm assuming that you're /confirming rather than confirming that you are scum with SF and ML?

This sits oddly with me. What kind of a response did you want from this question?

discussing setup on day 1 is a

terrible, terrible

idea!

This.

@Netopalis

, can you link a game where you started discussing setup on Day 1 and it wasn't an unmitigated disaster?

The boxman wagon does not look random to me. It looks to be based on a weak scumtell. I don't know how others see boxman's post 31, but to me it's boxman posting without content, posting without trying to advance the game or scum hunt, and possibly the worst sin of all -- making my sensfan bandwagon look silly!

I love how you call a scumtell weak and then make two points against him supporting the tell.

FoS: elvis_knits

Interesting.

@elvis_knits

: Why are you voting SensFan?

Townvibes from Seol.

Unvote

for now.

[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.

[SensFan]

^Just for the record, the fact that there were a limited number of roles made it far worse of an idea to discuss it early on.

On-topic, I find it somewhat wierd how quickly small wagons are moving about through the Town. I'm not sure what it means, but its odd.

[mathcam]

I do think people are over-reacting a bit to the "discussing the setup" idea. Sure things can go wrong, but things can go right as well -- e.g., if the game mechanics are confusing enough that it's worth the risk of slipping town information the mafia (which can be minimized) in order to get a better sense of what the optimal use of roles is. That said, I don't think is one of those games.

I love how you call a scumtell weak and then make two points against him supporting the tell.

I thought this is at first, too -- Though I'd like to hear what elvis has to say about this, I think this is a misinterpretation. I think she's emphasizing that it's not a

random

wagon

because

there's a scumtell that's prompting it (even if that scumtell is pretty weak).

Cam

[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.

[Iecerint]

I'd thought that the first "Confirm" was from some player other than SF and that MC was the first to slip up/joke about it, so I was prodding in that direction to see what would come up. As it is, he ignored me, so I guess it wasn't very effective. In any event, my current understanding that SF had already trivialized elvis's thread before that makes MC's perceived transgression all the more innocuous.

[elvis_knits]

SC, why are you assuming my vote isn't serious?

You seemed to just go with the flow. You still had a neutral read afterward, but again, I'm not all for the bandwagon stage.

The boxman wagon does not look random to me. It looks to be based on a weak scumtell. I don't know how others see boxman's post 31, but to me it's boxman posting without content, posting without trying to advance the game or scum hunt, and possibly the worst sin of all -- making my sensfan bandwagon look silly!

I love how you call a scumtell weak and then make two points against him supporting the tell.

FoS: elvis_knits

I didn't mean weak in the sense that it doesn't matter. I think it's entirely appropriate to go after weak tells in the beginning of the game. I didn't mean it as a criticism, only as a means of measurement. The second sentence was to show you what exactly about the post I thought was a weak scum tell. Again, weak doesn't mean "bad" but rather just not strong.

[elvis_knits]

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.

Well, I know why he doesn't like you, that's obvious. I actually meant to ask seol why he is connecting you to me. I can see him connecting you to boxman since you poo-pooed his boxman wagon. But why you and me are together, or why boxman and me are together, not sure why.

Your attack on Sensfan didn't ring true at all, and this in particular:

However, don't try to tell me you didn't know what you were doing. There was a vote count at the top of the page. I assume you can count to three seeing as all the boxman votes were on the same page.

felt unreasonably aggressive. Basically, it came across to me as an engineered argument; finding a reason to attack as opposed to genuine suspicion.

Why do you think it wasn't genuine?

Because I don't think most people pay that much attention to the vote count at this stage in the game: you're coming across as if it was irresponsible of Sensfan not to know the precise votecount, and furthermore as if he had heightened responsibility for it because he was an alternative wagon. Particularly the use of the phrase "you had to know what you were doing" is highly accusative on something which isn't a reasonable expectation of a typical player at this point.

I always pay attention to the vote count. And I think that most players pay attention to the votes that happen on the same page as theirs, just because of proximity. Was I picking on something that might not be a big deal? Maybe. Was I pressuring sensfan to get his reaction? Absolutely.

I also wanted to see how you reacted to mimicking your scum-team suggestion postings. The unexpected response: you took it seriously.

My suggestions were serious. Yours weren't?

Well, that depends what you mean by serious. It was reasoned, but not intended to carry much weight.

Did you have reasoning behind yours? If so, please elaborate.

How much weight did you intend them to carry?

I don't know how much weight I meant. It was meant to get things going, but I was also serious. Not like a heartattack, but taking my best guess from what was available at the time.

My reasoning was this:

I saw:
netoplais votes sensfan.
boxman votes netopalis.(Sometimes a scum "random" votes the player who is voting their buddy. So I decide to vote sensfan see if I can tell anything more about the relationship there.)
I vote sensfan, call for a bandwagon.
MacavityLock ignores my bandwagon and puts a second vote on parh. (So he's obviously looking to put multiple votes on someone, looking to pressure, but not on sensfan).

So that is where I got sensfan, boxman, ML. I didn't think I was necessarily right, obviously it's highly speculative and the explanation could be very innocent, but I thought it was a possible relationship and worth pressuring to get more info. Atleast to get people talking and what not.

PPE: This:

So are you going to explain your vote or are you just going to hide behind seol?

also has that quality of feeling unreasonably aggressive; attacking for the sake of attacking, and notably different in tone to how you're talking to anyone else.

How do you measure "reasonable aggression?" Of course I'm going to be more aggressive to someone that I am voting and think might be scum.

I don't

measure

it, that was the impression I took. It seems odd to be so accusative the first time you asked Sensfan for his reasoning, he'd only been asked once up to that point by

anyone

, and your previous exchange had an entirely different subject - so it's not unreasonable for Sensfan to think that's what you were interested in. I also don't get where the "hide behind Seol" comment comes from.

Well when people were commenting on sensfan's vote, he chose not to explain it and to ask SC "why don't you think me vote was serious?" Which is a deflection. I didn't like that. Then you came in here and were having your discussion with netopalis and sensfan was falling by the wayside, so in that way, he was getting away with not explaining his vote. Even now when I asked him so obnoxiously he refused to give me his reasoning. I don't know why he's doing that. I don't understand the big deal.

[elvis_knits]

The boxman wagon does not look random to me. It looks to be based on a weak scumtell. I don't know how others see boxman's post 31, but to me it's boxman posting without content, posting without trying to advance the game or scum hunt, and possibly the worst sin of all -- making my sensfan bandwagon look silly!

I'm pretty happy with just "a weak scumtell" for a first-couple-of-pages bandwagon. And as someone else pointed out, you seem to give pretty good reasons to support the wagon anyway. I think I'm missing your point here -- who was arguing that it was entirely random? If Sens weren't around as a second option, would you be for or against the wagon?

I would vote boxman, but I didn't feel like I was done with sensfan so I didn't want to divide my efforts.

The only problem I have with sensfan voting boxman is that it makes the rival bandwagon as big as his own, which switched momentum to someone else.

I'm confused as to why you would have a problem with this. This seems like a pretty reasonable thing for Sens to do.

Only that scum would definitely want the rival bandwagon to gain momentum and town might not, depending if they thought boxman was scummy or not. It just seemed like senfan jumped on the chance to vote boxman.

Well, I know why he doesn't like you, that's obvious. I actually meant to ask seol why he is connecting you to me. I can see him connecting you to boxman since you poo-pooed his boxman wagon. But why you and me are together, or why boxman and me are together, not sure why.

Because you also poo-pooed the boxman wagon?

I didn't mean to. I actually think it has merit. I can understand how it might look like this though since I didn't join the boxman wagon, and since I think I was misunderstood when I said it was a "weak scum tell." Or maybe I used it wrong. I guess weak has too much of a bad connotation. But I just meant it as a relative measurement term and not that there were better scum tells out there at that point.

[StrangerCoug]

I love how you call a scumtell weak and then make two points against him supporting the tell.

I thought this is at first, too -- Though I'd like to hear what elvis has to say about this, I think this is a misinterpretation. I think she's emphasizing that it's not a

random

wagon

because

there's a scumtell that's prompting it (even if that scumtell is pretty weak).

I correctly interpreted elvis_knits as not believing that the Boxman wagon was random. I'm attacking her for supporting the attack for a scumtell she says is weak, which made little sense to me.

SC, why are you assuming my vote isn't serious?

You seemed to just go with the flow. You still had a neutral read afterward, but again, I'm not all for the bandwagon stage.

The boxman wagon does not look random to me. It looks to be based on a weak scumtell. I don't know how others see boxman's post 31, but to me it's boxman posting without content, posting without trying to advance the game or scum hunt, and possibly the worst sin of all -- making my sensfan bandwagon look silly!

I love how you call a scumtell weak and then make two points against him supporting the tell.

FoS: elvis_knits

I didn't mean weak in the sense that it doesn't matter. I think it's entirely appropriate to go after weak tells in the beginning of the game. I didn't mean it as a criticism, only as a means of measurement. The second sentence was to show you what exactly about the post I thought was a weak scum tell. Again, weak doesn't mean "bad" but rather just not strong.

I actually think refusing to partake in discussion is pretty strong as it's anti-information.

[elvis_knits]

I love how you call a scumtell weak and then make two points against him supporting the tell.

I thought this is at first, too -- Though I'd like to hear what elvis has to say about this, I think this is a misinterpretation. I think she's emphasizing that it's not a

random

wagon

because

there's a scumtell that's prompting it (even if that scumtell is pretty weak).

I correctly interpreted elvis_knits as not believing that the Boxman wagon was random. I'm attacking her for supporting the attack for a scumtell she says is weak, which made little sense to me.

See above. I didn't mean weak=bad.

I actually think refusing to partake in discussion is pretty strong as it's anti-information.

I agree it can be a good tell, but I see a lot of newer players do it as town. And boxman doesn't seem like a vet, so that makes it less sure for me. You could be completely right though.

What do you think about sensfan not explaining his boxman vote? I think that's anti-informational.

[elvis_knits]

On-topic, I find it somewhat wierd how quickly small wagons are moving about through the Town. I'm not sure what it means, but its odd.

There's been two wagons of three votes. What is odd about that?

[StrangerCoug]

What do you think about sensfan not explaining his boxman vote? I think that's anti-informational.

I already addressed this as him looking like he was just going with the flow.

[SensFan]

On-topic, I find it somewhat wierd how quickly small wagons are moving about through the Town. I'm not sure what it means, but its odd.

There's been two wagons of three votes. What is odd about that?

It just seems like there's a whole lot of people willing to jump on the 'new' wagon.

There were votes on me, then Boxman, then when you pressure me, a few people vote/FoS you.

I've never seen wagons change so quickly, even this early.

[Seol]

I'm busy at the moment, and don't have time to reply to everything, but I wanted to just talk about this point briefly:

What do you think about sensfan not explaining his boxman vote? I think that's anti-informational.

The problem with Boxman's statement is that he's looking for discussion without contributing himself - he's avoiding involvement

at all

. Sensfan isn't doing that, he's perfectly involved in the discussion, he just hasn't answered one specific question. That is not, in and of itself, a bad thing.

Take, for example, if I asked you to make a full roleclaim now. I wouldn't expect you to do so, even though by not being forthcoming with an answer, you're being "anti-informational". Full disclosure is as naive and dangerous as non-disclosure. Sometimes by not disclosing certain information, you protect it for more productive use later; sometims by not disclosing information, you elicit interesting reactions from other players.

You said you didn't understand the big deal about him not explaining his vote: I don't see him making a big deal about it, but I do see you doing that. It's similar to my surprise at you for asking for justification of my scumteam speculation, you've got a bug up your ass about anything not being fully explained. Why?

[elvis_knits]

Generally, I ask for explanation out of curiosity and to keep the conversation going so I can better judge allignment. I have learned recently that just accepting things can be bad (/invitational 4 i let people get away with softclaims and accepted breadcrumbs too often). This is not the same thing, but I just think that asking for explanation is good. Do you disagree? Why?

Also, it's not so much that I mind things not being explained right away every moment. Sometimes people don't for whatever reason (time, wanting to see reactions, I do it too).

But I mind people not explaining when asked.

Seems like bad faith. So when I saw sensfan fail to explain his vote and instead ask a question of SC, I felt he was deflecting the question. And I asked you for explanation so that I could address any concerns you have.

So I only get a bug up my ass when requests are denied.

[Seol]

This is not the same thing, but I just think that asking for explanation is good. Do you disagree? Why?

I think there's very little in the way of behaviour that is essentially good or bad: it's not what you do, it's how you do it. I didn't object to the questions you were asking Sensfan, I was objecting to

how

you asked them.

Also, it's not so much that I mind things not being explained right away every moment. Sometimes people don't for whatever reason (time, wanting to see reactions, I do it too).

But I mind people not explaining when asked.

Seems like bad faith.

So you believe that everyone has a

responsibility

to explain their entire thought process on demand? I guess that's something we disagree on, then.

So when I saw sensfan fail to explain his vote and instead ask a question of SC, I felt he was deflecting the question.

The question he asked of SC was directly related to the reason behind his vote: hardly deflecting from the issue at hand. In fact, I thought he made it nicely clear that part of the intent of voting like that was to see how people reacted to an unexplained vote. If it wasn't clear then, it should have been here:

If I see fit to explain the vote, I will. It should be pretty obvious, though.

And I asked you for explanation so that I could address any concerns you have.

And the process has definitely given me a greater insight into your thought process than I expected, so thank you for that.

[mathcam]

As it is, he ignored me, so I guess it wasn't very effective.

Sorry. I was indeed cofirming (jokingly, ha ha) that I was scum and responding with a joke-ish first vote. I figured it was made clear by subsequent comments, so didn't bother responding.

I correctly interpreted elvis_knits as not believing that the Boxman wagon was random. I'm attacking her for supporting the attack for a scumtell she says is weak, which made little sense to me.

Unless you were confused by her "weak," which she has now clarified, I don't think this makes sense. A weak scumtell is better than no scumtell, and on day one, I'm pretty excited to even get a weak scumtell.

Unvote: Elvs, Vote: Boxman.

So you believe that everyone has a responsibility to explain their entire thought process on demand? I guess that's something we disagree on, then.

I don't want to speak for elvis (maybe that

is

what she meant), but it's a bit of a jump from expecting an explanation for an early day one vote when the game is heavily dependent on getting initial reads on all players from their posts, to expecting an entire thought process on demand any time and every time it's asked for. The former seems eminently reasonable, the latter not so much. But regardless, this discussion might not be the best use of thread space.

Cam

[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.

[MacavityLock]

Unvote.

I originally chose to vote Parh over mathcam (both of whom were the slow confirmers) because I had recently played in a game with Parh, and thought that I could get more out of pressuring him. Other stuff has happened thus far though.

Iec and Neto feel off to me for some reason.

elvis, what are you claiming about BM in the bit SC quoted?

It reads as if you believe that town-BM is slyly discrediting your wagon on scum-SF.

That doesn't make much sense to me.

Iec, can you explain what you mean by the sentence I italicized? I don't really understand it.

I'd love to hear from Boxman with regards to all the discussion around his wagon.

[MacavityLock]

Sorry for double-post, failed to see Neto's on preview.

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.

Why is 3 votes at page 4 an issue? Is 3 votes a large amount? (Also, I think that with mathcam's, it's actually 4 votes on Boxman.)

[MacavityLock]

And triple-post.

@mod

, I will be LA until Nov 12. I should be around enough to post, but not entirely sure.

[Iecerint]

ML -- your italicized bit is my read of the elvis quote I was asking about. Here's said quote:

The boxman wagon does not look random to me. It looks to be based on a weak scumtell. I don't know how others see boxman's post 31, but to me it's boxman posting without content, posting without trying to advance the game or scum hunt, and possibly the worst sin of all -- making my sensfan bandwagon look silly!

At the time, I was assuming that elvis wouldn't criticize the boxman wagon unless she thought he was town. If she thought that both BM and SF were likely scum, her indignation above wouldn't make much sense. So I assumed she thought/was leaning that BM was town and SF was scum.

The last sentence of the quote indicates that there are three things BM has done that elvis believes are worthly of suspicion -- low content, low scumhunting, and trivializing her SF bandwagon. (How BM is responsible for trivializing said wagon is anyone's guess, but that's how the quote reads to me.) The last of these transgressions make little sense, because it's not clear why a town player would actively discredit a wagon on another player, but that's what elvis seems to be claiming.

It looked like SC had already called her out on this, but elvis's hypothetical scumtell made such little sense that I wanted to get clarification from her.

[Netopalis]

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