Mini 897 - OpenSource Mafia - Game over!!

[Iecerint]

The point is that they are both examples of metafail.

SP's case on Vaya was bad because Vaya is always lurky D1 (and was inactive on the site up til his case was made).

Your case on me is bad because I am always concerned about how I'm perceived (for good reasons that I have already indicated). Also, your two non-Vaya points contradict one another as you're applying them. The first implies that I *should* vote my conscience, appearances be damned, while the second point is derived from Pome's assertion that 3rd votes are scummy. (Hadn't noticed the second bit before.)

[AlmasterGM]

Shes a 13 year old girl in school with an older sister on the site. Pressure and people hounding her might be a bit overwhelming to the average 13 year old.

I'm not sure how this applies. No one was breathing down her neck for the first 10 pages when she failed to do anything substantive. Age may influence scumhunting text for specific tells, but I don't see why it should be an excuse for outright weak play.

[UncertainKitten]

Shes a 13 year old girl in school with an older sister on the site. Pressure and people hounding her might be a bit overwhelming to the average 13 year old.

Yeah, I knew this. And was figuring that's what you were after. And I didn't like it. Still don't. It's easy to make a meta defense based on that. I have my own list of expectations for pom. Honestly, I wasn't really looking at her til you came to her defense. Now I have to reconsider things.

But also another meta factor for you, you have a mod meta, and of that for these kinds of games none-the-less, so I would hold game setup speculation and instances of 'try to outguess the mod' from you to be more valued than a player that sticks to normal and newbie games.

That's nice. I still don't have a good feel for SlySly, so I'm just as in the dark as you are. I just know my information allows for an interesting scenario.

And now I'm manipulating you by playing to your gender and stroking your ego with the mod talk of past games.

Don't see it working. I don't see how my gender has factored into this actually.

Your opinion of me changes with each sentence, me stating the things up above certainly hasn't made you think I'm more scummy, as I know that doesn't play to your meta.
It might now though.

You are not low on my list of people likely to be scum. You also aren't high. Honestly, you are not a player that has registered as "playing this game" for me. Not because you are lurking or not producing. Because you haven't gained my notice. You slowly are, and it might not be something good for you if you're scum. If you are town, it's probably a good thing. I'll figure that out eventually...I hope.

Just be sure to know the difference between liking the argument for its structural integrity, and liking the argument because you like how it makes you perceive yourself.

I'm aware. Course, if you want to keep complimenting me, go ahead ^-^.

[Iecerint]

Honestly, I wasn't really looking at her til you came to her defense.

Hmm. Please clarify what you mean by this.

[UncertainKitten]

You can't say that males and females generally don't have similar playstyles.
Adel had a very masculine, analytical playstyle even before he was a male (that is, onsite Razz )

Its no absolute though. (as I would see a box as being as)

Oh? I'm curious how you analyze my playstyle

SP's case on Vaya was bad because Vaya is always lurky D1 (and was inactive on the site up til his case was made).

Your case on me is bad because I am always concerned about how I'm perceived (for good reasons that I have already indicated). Also, your two non-Vaya points contradict one another as you're applying them. The first implies that I *should* vote my conscience, appearances be damned, while the second point is derived from Pome's assertion that 3rd votes are scummy. (Hadn't noticed the second bit before.)

How is it derived from that? And that's a false dichotomy. They aren't contradictory. You shouldn't worry about appearances, but you should always be pro town. It's not something you force though. Don't hold back from an action because you think it might be perceived badly. But make sure it does some good for the town. I hope that makes sense.

[SocioPath]

Don't see it working. I don't see how my gender has factored into this actually.

I'm aware. Course, if you want to keep complimenting me, go ahead ^-^.

Also notice how virtually every response to a part of my post starts with a short, snippet of a sentence.
Was that something that happened on purpose in that you had planned?
Or did it just sort of turn out that way?
Now, its not uncommon for you to have a such response, but look at the concentration.

[UncertainKitten]

Hmm. Please clarify what you mean by this.

Possibility of a chainsaw causes me to reassess both of you. Tomorrow though.

Also notice how virtually every response to a part of my post starts with a short, snippet of a sentence.
Was that something that happened on purpose in that you had planned?
Or did it just sort of turn out that way?
Now, its not uncommon for you to have a such response, but look at the concentration.

Well, that's probably something I always do. But it doesn't lead to any alignment tells.

[Iecerint]

Either you were operationalizing your criticisms, or you weren't.

If you weren't, then you're just sloganeering and your criticizing has little to nothing to do with my play. In this case, your case on me (except the Vaya bits) is just a variation of 2TOWN4TOWN, which is very lazy, level-able at almost any player, etc.

If you were, and I think you need to reread the situation. When I voted SP with you (which is the basis of both your first two points against me, as I understand it), I clearly indicated the basis of my support. It was in fact undifferentiable from your own stated basis for the wagon. That one of these is scummy and one not -- especially given that we both thought we were the 2nd vote -- does not make sense to me.

And yeah, Pome was the first one to bring up the 3rd vote business. You corrected her (saying it was the 4th vote counting an early-game vote) and chastised her for expressing her reads in wikitell format, but agreed with the substance of her assertion.

[UncertainKitten]

And yeah, Pome was the first one to bring up the 3rd vote business. You corrected her (saying it was the 4th vote counting an early-game vote) and chastised her for expressing her reads in wikitell format, but agreed with the substance of her assertion.

Cite this for me. I forgot it ^-^;

Either you were operationalizing your criticisms, or you weren't.

Huh? I don't know what you mean here.

If you weren't, then you're just sloganeering and your criticizing has little to nothing to do with my play. In this case, your case on me (except the Vaya bits) is just a variation of 2TOWN4TOWN, which is very lazy, level-able at almost any player, etc.

Even more puzzling

If you were, and I think you need to reread the situation. When I voted SP with you (which is the basis of both your first two points against me, as I understand it), I clearly indicated the basis of my support. It was in fact undifferentiable from your own stated basis for the wagon. That one of these is scummy and one not -- especially given that we both thought we were the 2nd vote -- does not make sense to me.

Splitting hairs. And misrep. You see, the thing is you stated that you didn't want to look like you were OMGUSing. Why should a townie care about that? That's what bothered me. The fact you followed me onto there was...interesting. And I think I noticed you following earlier this game. I'll recheck to be sure of that though.

[Iecerint]

Hmm. Please clarify what you mean by this.

Possibility of a chainsaw causes me to reassess both of you. Tomorrow though.

1. I asked that.
2. Let me clarify my questions with nice bold for you.

Honestly,

I wasn't really looking at [Pome]

til you came to her defense.

[Iecerint]

"Operationalize" means "clarify what it means." For example, if your tells are clear enough that you can decide that some things apply and some things don't given any appropriate input, that's a well-formed, operationalized tell.

Some people don't use operationalized tells. For example, some people say that they feel something in their gut, or that something feels "off." These are not operationalized tells because they depend on the person giving them. Some tells, like 2TOWN4TOWN, appear to be operationalized, but they're not. I think you can see why, right?

Let me know if that doesn't clear up those first two paragraphs.

The Pome business is all on Page 10. The relevant posts are 232, 234, and 246. It's probably better to read it all in context, though.

If you were only cross with me for saying I didn't want to vote SP while he was voting me after I pointed out his mistake with the Vaya business, you shouldn't have accused me of "bandwagon-following" at all. To the extent that your "bandwagon-following" point isn't totally vacuous (which is not an instance of "splitting hairs" at all ), it is an indirect cross-reference of Pome's point. (For the record, it's very poor play IMO to directly attack attackers in my experience. Even if your points are good, you invariably come off as hysterical.)

[Iecerint]

(EBWOP: Yes, I'm aware that that isn't literally what "operationalize" means, but it'll do for now innit.)

[Iecerint]

In case people don't want to go back to Page 10 for whatever reason, this is the post where UK does what I prior indicated:

Iec, your vote is suspicious. The third vote on a bandwagon/in a row is a tad scummy. It's not very scummy- I'm just throwing this out there.

It's the fourth vote actually. It bothers me as well. Initially Iec wanted to stay on Josh, despite the V/LA being pointed out. I did the same thing. Now that I've switched off Josh though, Iec has followed. This does not put me at ease, but I'll take a wait and see approach. His vote on SSK did feel more self motivated and actually scum hunty.

Also, lol at wikitell, Pom .

[Glork]

Hmm. Please clarify what you mean by this.

Possibility of a chainsaw causes me to reassess both of you. Tomorrow though.

I don't see how SocioPath used a Chainsaw Defense anywhere.

And even if it did, Chainsaw cannot be used as a valid point until its assumed premises are shown to be correct. That would require two dead bodies, which we don't have yet.

[Glork]

Also, I will be on V/LA from tomorrow until Dec 28. I will probably also be on V/LA around New Year's, but I don't actually know my NYE plans for certain yet.

[UncertainKitten]

I don't see how SocioPath used a Chainsaw Defense anywhere.

And even if it did, Chainsaw cannot be used as a valid point until its assumed premises are shown to be correct. That would require two dead bodies, which we don't have yet.

I said the possibility of it. I know it can't literally be a chainsaw for certain unless we have flips. But I think I need to look at both SP and Pome.

That said...I just realized, you're right, it's not a chainsaw. I withdraw the accusation. However, the meta clear still bothers me.

1. I asked that.
2. Let me clarify my questions with nice bold for you.

SP's meta clear bothers me.

"Operationalize" means "clarify what it means." For example, if your tells are clear enough that you can decide that some things apply and some things don't given any appropriate input, that's a well-formed, operationalized tell.

Some people don't use operationalized tells. For example, some people say that they feel something in their gut, or that something feels "off." These are not operationalized tells because they depend on the person giving them. Some tells, like 2TOWN4TOWN, appear to be operationalized, but they're not. I think you can see why, right?

Ok. It's probably operationalized. That said, how in the nine hells do you draw me accusing you of being 2TOWN4TOWN?

This is...just a horrible misrep.

(For the record, it's very poor play IMO to directly attack attackers in my experience. Even if your points are good, you invariably come off as hysterical.)

That's your opinion. It depends on how you present it, actually.

If you were only cross with me for saying I didn't want to vote SP while he was voting me after I pointed out his mistake with the Vaya business, you shouldn't have accused me of "bandwagon-following" at all. To the extent that your "bandwagon-following" point isn't totally vacuous

See, here we disagree. I'm not at ALL referring to Pom's point of "lololol, third on the bandwagon". What I'm referring to is the fact you were following me (and I believe others). I have things to do today but I'll elaborate further on this later.

Initially Iec wanted to stay on Josh, despite the V/LA being pointed out. I did the same thing. Now that I've switched off Josh though, Iec has followed. This does not put me at ease, but I'll take a wait and see approach. His vote on SSK did feel more self motivated and actually scum hunty.

Oh hey, look at that, elaborated reasons OUTSIDE of lololol, fourth on bandwagon.

I really don't see how you are trying to argue this ^-^;

[Glork]

I would be content to lynch any among {Pom, Iec, SP}

[MafiaSSK]

Bah! Stereotypes! You can't just put girls and guys in boxes like that

You can't say that males and females generally don't have similar playstyles.
Adel had a very masculine, analytical playstyle even before he was a male (that is, onsite )

Its no absolute though. (as I would see a box as being as)

Seriously? hmm...I...don't like this. It makes me want to get Pom's flip. But I really want Iec's as well .

Shes a 13 year old girl in school with an older sister on the site. Pressure and people hounding her might be a bit overwhelming to the average 13 year old.
And in depth psychoanalysis and playstyle descriptions isn't something I would expect from her either. This goes with the ASL meta, and her site meta I have on her.

I am 15. I was 13 when I started out on the site. It is fine to be pressured. Don't stereotype kids as wimps.

[MafiaSSK]

Don't see it working. I don't see how my gender has factored into this actually.

I'm aware. Course, if you want to keep complimenting me, go ahead ^-^.

Also notice how virtually every response to a part of my post starts with a short, snippet of a sentence.
Was that something that happened on purpose in that you had planned?
Or did it just sort of turn out that way?
Now, its not uncommon for you to have a such response, but look at the concentration.

SP your case makes no fricken sense.

[UncertainKitten]

SP your case makes no fricken sense.

I shouldn't answer for SP, but in this case, he's not making a case on me, he's trying to mindfuck me. I actually could argue that's a little scummy, because if you are town, what's the point of trying to throw off the calibration of someone else's scumhunting?

[Iecerint]

UK, my point is that whereas you indicated that you had not looked at Pome this game til recently, it is quite clear that she has been on your radar (if not your scumdar) for much of the game. Your interaction after her wikitell on me is just one example. You minimized her behavior in this exchange, too:

Pome, what's your point about scum "not wanting to risk it?" I mean, I agree with you, but why point that out?

You wanna know what bothers me more? Josh's most recent post on the issue. Honestly, the answers to most of those questions are self evident, and I really don't see a pro town reason for asking them.

Perhaps others disagree?

Regarding 2T4T -- it's not that you're necessarily accusing me of that, but the alternative interpretations of your attack make no sense. Here are some possible ways to understand your argument:

1. Late wagon-joining is scummy.
2. Iec did it.
3. Iec is scum.

^ But that's bull, because I thought I was the second vote. (It's a pretty silly argument, anyway, but that's neither here nor there.) So I'm assuming that isn't what you mean, right? So to understand my action as scummy, something absurd like this is necessary:

1. Late wagon-joining is scummy.
2. Townies don't care about trying to look scummy! O_o
3. Iec did it, so he's trying to look townie! o_O
4. Iec is scum.

Which is 2T4T/very silly.

Your point is that I didn't want to revote a player attacking me (SP) is recognized, but it is similarly 2T4T because my action was literally the OPPOSITE of the stereotypically "scum" action (i.e. OMGUS). Hence, while you are claiming that that is scummy, it is actually, if anything, the opposite of scummy. You've set-up a circumstance where regardless of my response to SP back then (OMGUS v. status quo), it would be interpreted as a "scum" action, whether conventionally or via flawed 2T4T logic. So your tell would not be operationalized. (This reflects my prior claim that either your tell is not operationalized, or you need to reread Page 10.) Does that make sense?

Opinion = meta. It is not irrelevant, especially when you're making claims about a player's action being reflective of his alignment.

I'm looking forward to your vague claim that I have "followed" on other occasions today. I followed you to SP because I trusted your "official information" claim that lynching Vaya was poor play, and I maintain that that was perfectly reasonable given the premise that you are not full of shit. Granted, whether you are full of shit is yet to be seen, etc.

Your claimed "reasons OUTSIDE of lololol, fourth on bandwagon" really just indicate that our play with respect to the SP votes were insignificantly different. I could just as easily claim that you were scummy for protecting Vaya and attacking her former attacker. In fact, the accusation is more suitable in your case given your vague "official information" claim.

[UncertainKitten]

UK, my point is that whereas you indicated that you had not looked at Pome this game til recently, it is quite clear that she has been on your radar (if not your scumdar) for much of the game. Your interaction after her wikitell on me is just one example. You minimized her behavior in this exchange, too:

Interesting. That wasn't intentional. But I'll be hoenst, Pom hadn't bothered me as much as Josh at that point. Josh's post was, indeed, worse IMO.

Regarding 2T4T -- it's not that you're necessarily accusing me of that, but the alternative interpretations of your attack make no sense. Here are some possible ways to understand your argument:

1. Late wagon-joining is scummy.
2. Iec did it.
3. Iec is scum.

^ But that's bull, because I thought I was the second vote. (It's a pretty silly argument, anyway, but that's neither here nor there.) So I'm assuming that isn't what you mean, right? So to understand my action as scummy, something absurd like this is necessary:

1. Late wagon-joining is scummy.
2. Townies don't care about trying to look scummy! O_o
3. Iec did it, so he's trying to look townie! o_O
4. Iec is scum.

Which is 2T4T/very silly.

See, I love how this is. It's a complete misrep of what I said. You act like the late wagon joining itself is the scummy point, whereas it's not. It's the following behavior and the lack of original thought between your switches. Now does it make sense?

I'm looking forward to your vague claim that I have "followed" on other occasions today. I followed you to SP because I trusted your "official information" claim that lynching Vaya was poor play, and I maintain that that was perfectly reasonable given the premise that you are not full of shit. Granted, whether you are full of shit is yet to be seen, etc.

Why did you follow me to SP? Why didn't you vote anyone else? What original reasoning did you have on SP? Or was it just blatant bandwagoning?

I think I have to read you in iso to work this out. I might change my mind.

Your claimed "reasons OUTSIDE of lololol, fourth on bandwagon" really just indicate that our play with respect to the SP votes were insignificantly different.

Were they? I don't know this. You voted after I did.

I could just as easily claim that you were scummy for protecting Vaya and attacking her former attacker. In fact, the accusation is more suitable in your case given your vague "official information" claim.

The thing is, my "protection" is objectively verifiable (granted, it'd probably require my flip. Though even that might not help). But, it's also subjectively verifiable within one game day.

/me sighs

After I do a few things (call it an hour from now), I'll do that iso.

[Snow_Bunny]

Again, mod, connection issues here, so I'm kind of LA for now.

[Pomegranate]

Pom, use word then. You have no excuse not to make a better post than that. In fact, for pressure

unvote vote Pom

I guess I should have been more clear: I had started the post, but later I was having dome problems with MS. I couldn't follow any links, and could not go back to the actual game page, and could only mention what I remembered from reading the thread, and from Topic Review. Making my post on a Word Document wouldn't have helped any.

Pome, if you could list your most recently-completed games as town and scum, that would be nice.

All my completed games are on my wiki, complete with roles and links to the games.

My point here is that we should lynch scummy people, not play follow-the-cop (or any other role, for that matter).

Me wonders why not. I mean, it was such a successful tactic for town that they had to come with an alternative (macho cops and roleblockers) so the game wouldn't be unbalanced.

Well, regarding this game specifically, follow the cop is definitely a bad idea. It's a bastard game.

The reason I'm torn is one of her comments though:

I'll try to do more

now

, though.

I don't like the 'now'. This implies that since she got called out on it, only 'now' will she start trying to be useful and productive, but before, she wouldn't have.

Look at the sentence this way: You say I haven't done much

up until this point

, and I see that you argument makes sense , so

I'll try to do more

[from]

now

[on].

The underline explains why I used the word now, and the bold shows the original sentence.

Also, I don't want to be judged that much on my age and sex. Yes, I'm thirteen, but I wouldn't have joined the site if I didn't think I was ready. I did have mafia experience before I joined. I disagree with this post:

Shes a 13 year old girl in school with an older sister on the site. Pressure and people hounding her might be a bit overwhelming to the average 13 year old.

SSK explains what I mean:

Don't stereotype kids as wimps.

Your case on me is bad because I am always concerned about how I'm perceived (for good reasons that I have already indicated). Also, your two non-Vaya points contradict one another as you're applying them. The first implies that I *should* vote my conscience, appearances be damned, while the second point is derived from Pome's assertion that 3rd votes are scummy. (Hadn't noticed the second bit before.)

Unlike UK, I don't find it scummy when people are meticulous about how they appear. I think that everyone needs some element of it, because without it, I think there would be more mislynches based on votehopping, false connections, and backpedaling.

How is it derived from that? And that's a false dichotomy. They aren't contradictory. You shouldn't worry about appearances, but you should always be pro town. It's not something you force though. Don't hold back from an action because you think it might be perceived badly. But make sure it does some good for the town. I hope that makes sense.

If you're always pro-town then you will probably be percieved well. But what about someone with a playstyle like Tubby: He does it to guage reactions, as he stated:

i found its a great tool in judgeing aligments if town and flushing power roles as scum.

in a thread about his playstyle. Does that mean it's always the best thing to do? He is often mislynched because of it, even though he is trying to scumhunt and be pro-town in his own way.

SP your case makes no fricken sense.

I shouldn't answer for SP, but in this case, he's not making a case on me, he's trying to mindfuck me. I actually could argue that's a little scummy, because if you are town, what's the point of trying to throw off the calibration of someone else's scumhunting?

I think he's trying to show that you can't judge every player 100% by his/her gameplay, and that you should take other things into account. He's explaining why he's evaluating me a bit differently than other players. Idon't agree with it, but I understand it.

[UncertainKitten]

Unlike UK, I don't find it scummy when people are meticulous about how they appear. I think that everyone needs some element of it, because without it, I think there would be more mislynches based on votehopping, false connections, and backpedaling.

I've found that when I stopped caring, I got lynched a lot less. I think sometimes people overcompensate and it comes off as scummy.

If you're always pro-town then you will probably be percieved well. But what about someone with a playstyle like Tubby: He does it to guage reactions, as he stated:

tubby is an interesting case. That's where meta comes into play.

I think he's trying to show that you can't judge every player 100% by his/her gameplay, and that you should take other things into account. He's explaining why he's evaluating me a bit differently than other players. Idon't agree with it, but I understand it.

I've always thought those factors were implicit. But he is playing something with me or he wouldn't have gotten into it as he did.

Ok, I'll get food then do an Iec iso.