Mini 956: The Quayside (Game Over)

[Hoopla]

Day 1, Vote Count #6

With twelve alive, it takes

7

votes to lynch. Deadline is schedueled for 7:00AM GMT, April 26th <Countdown>.

RedCoyote

-

3

(iamausername, SerialClergyman, Ectomancer)

Goatrevolt

-

2

(Patrick, popsofctown)

Ectomancer

-

2

(NabakovNabakov, Elmo)

Elmo

-

2

(Incognito, RedCoyote)

popsofctown

-

2

(Goatrevolt, McGriddle)

SerialClergyman

-

1

(Jahudo)

[Ectomancer]

All towntells are weak. If there was something that was really a guaranteed way to make yourself look town, scum would do it. In this way, towntells sort of always remain weak. There's few exceptions.

Scumtells happen because people mess up. People mess up, but they can't "awesome up" and do some epic towntell.

...and?

Did you think it necessary to warn people off of believing people to be town based off a single tell? Why would you not then do the same about single scum tells? (not scum slips, there is a big difference) \

In context, i was asked what I thought of a player. Since I gave only positive feedback, I felt it necessary to say that all towntells are weak so it doesn't sum to a strong town read.

Ok, context may have been missing.

Yeah, 55 pages of you and I together in a thread, none of them mafia

[SerialClergyman]

I didn't like one part of Nab's post (that I was oging to for other reasons stuff is a minor scumtell) but I'm not sold on him.

I would like Patrick to say something concrete after his last post, hence my question to him about his suspects.

[popsofctown]

I wanna play dino run. It'd be a great metaphor for my life's escapism anyway.

[Ectomancer]

@Goat - I liked your game starter on Pops. I also think that gut reads are not to be dismissed out of hand. Whether his joked were forced or not depends on familiarity with him. Another opinion feels he is being Pops, and so the case boils down to my original description, a good game starter.

unvote

This is scummy, I don't like that (was rereading/isoing)

So I guess I'd vote Ectomancer for his halfway support of goatrevolt's case. It's fishy. Seems more like calculating what wagon he wants to be on or off of then continuous feelings about my alignment.

I don't recall playing with you much, if at all, so let me fill you in on my personal ego trip. If I have any skill at all in mafia, it is in getting a game started. It can be done by creating the situation yourself by going on the offensive, or you can support other talented game starters to make it happen.
In short, Goat never intended this to be a "serious" case though serious reasoning was behind it. I never intended it as a "serious" case, though serious reasoning is behind it. As a case, it served its purpose.

I waffled over having to deal with expected attacks over this next part, but I'll also reveal a second, personal layer of reasoning for my decision. When a player kicks out a starter case, you have two options. You can support their "case", or you can oppose what they had to say.
In this case, for me, who the player was that kicked off things was as important as what they had to say.
I have a problem with Goatrevolt. Not a personal problem, a game problem. He may have similiar recollections, maybe not.
I've played a number of games with Goat, and it seems we've gone head to head nearly every time. I've never known his alignment. Ever. I've never spent as much time waffling over someone's alignment. I remember having a vig shot that I wanted to use on him, but never could. Not because I didn't think he could be scum, but because

I had no clue

and so was forced to leave the judgement to others who felt they did know.
So I made a conscious decision to let him go head to head with other people instead and see if it makes a difference. It at least is allowing me to be more objective about the material. It also allows me to stay "chill".

Primarily I posted that to head off any "buddying" posts concerning Goat. This doesn't mean I'm not going to call him out when wrong, but you can expect a different treatment of Goat by me. Goat himself isn't going to like it and this could very well bring about the exact situation I intend to avoid. Ce 'est la vie. I plan to win, and this is my strategy for dealing with a player I've been unable to read in the past.

[SerialClergyman]

I think the above is both utterly believable and very unlikely to come from scum.

[Goatrevolt]

I waffled over having to deal with expected attacks over this next part, but I'll also reveal a second, personal layer of reasoning for my decision. When a player kicks out a starter case, you have two options. You can support their "case", or you can oppose what they had to say.
In this case, for me, who the player was that kicked off things was as important as what they had to say.
I have a problem with Goatrevolt. Not a personal problem, a game problem. He may have similiar recollections, maybe not.
I've played a number of games with Goat, and it seems we've gone head to head nearly every time. I've never known his alignment. Ever. I've never spent as much time waffling over someone's alignment. I remember having a vig shot that I wanted to use on him, but never could. Not because I didn't think he could be scum, but because

I had no clue

and so was forced to leave the judgement to others who felt they did know.
So I made a conscious decision to let him go head to head with other people instead and see if it makes a difference. It at least is allowing me to be more objective about the material. It also allows me to stay "chill".

Primarily I posted that to head off any "buddying" posts concerning Goat. This doesn't mean I'm not going to call him out when wrong, but you can expect a different treatment of Goat by me. Goat himself isn't going to like it and this could very well bring about the exact situation I intend to avoid. Ce 'est la vie. I plan to win, and this is my strategy for dealing with a player I've been unable to read in the past.

Hah! I wondered if that was coming into play at all. And actually I am doing the same thing with you. I've read you as scum (incorrectly, I believe) every single time I've played with you. We both know what happened in the last game .

I'm trying to make a conscious effort to remain more "chill" as well. I really don't want to get into the kind of back and forth we had last time around.

[Incognito]

Got time for a post before I re-hit the books.

I'm sure Elmo will be pleased you approve, despite his not being able to recall or state why it was there. If you believe a vote was needed for "loose" voting, then why wasn't it your own?

Because I was still waiting for Elmo (the person I'm currently voting) to offer some input. I didn't see any reason to shift my vote to someone new when Elmo hadn't produced anything in the way of content. Also, I wanted to see if your vote shifting was something that became a pattern and if it did, I figured I'd be able to check into past games to see if this was typical of you before coming to a conclusion about it.

As for what I meant by loose, I just didn't feel like your vote transitions were very clear to me. Yes, each of your vote switches were backed with reasoning and a case, but I didn't develop the impression that, for example, when your vote was on pops, that you prodded and probed him to get a feel for where he was coming from. Similar could be said about your current vote on RedCoyote. Maybe loose is the wrong word to describe it; I just didn't get the feeling that you were attempting to engage in conversation with your suspects in an attempt to try and figure them out.

I do agree with SerialClergyman that your most recent post gives me a bit of a better vibe though.

I post fluff with both alignments now. I found out it's actually pretty fun.

unvote, vote: popsofctown

Either begin producing more in the way of content, or I will seriously begin pushing your lynch hard. With two week deadlines, I don't think we have time to be fooling around.

I'd like to see much more coming from NabNab, Jahudo, iamausername, and Patrick too. For the first three, I feel like I have absolutely no preliminary reads on. With Patrick, I still haven't completely gotten that distinct town feel that I normally get when I've played in past games with him.

[Incognito]

btw, Ecto, if you're ever doing meta again in the future this link is probably what you wanna be using right now rather than a google search.

[iamausername]

Oh, hi Elmo, nice of you to show up 8 minutes after someone first asked for your opinion on something

This is ringing my scumdar.

I disagree with practically everything popsofctown said in his 102.

+1

Iam: Can you explain your previous experience with RedCoyote? Your first post hinted at a history of you voting for him and right now you are.

Yeah, I've played a couple of games with him before (Newbie #733 and Mini #739). Both started at pretty much the same time. Coyote was town in both, I was town in one and scum in the other, and in both games, I ended up pushing for his lynch D1. This comment is my enduring memory of RedCoyote, which is why I voted him this game:

I think you need to seriously consider whether your like/dislike of my writing and playstyle is affecting your judgment of me in general.

More specifically, the fact that he only made this appeal in the game where I was scum amused me.

Anyway, it's possible that the RedCoyote of the past has a point, and I think I need to do some looking into his meta, and remind myself of why it was I thought he was scum/a good target in those two games.

p.s. Mini #739 is also my only previous experience with pops, I think. He got run up on D1 for posting fluff in that game too.

I think the above is both utterly believable and very unlikely to come from scum.

I was thinking exactly the same thing.

unvote, vote: popsofctown

Either begin producing more in the way of content, or I will seriously begin pushing your lynch hard. With two week deadlines, I don't think we have time to be fooling around.

I'd like to see much more coming from NabNab, Jahudo, iamausername, and Patrick too.

So you're happy with Elmo's contribution level?

[NabakovNabakov]

Well, I'm clearly not happy with Elmo's contribution so far. An unaccompanied random vote I can handle, but staying entirely out of discussion until somebody specifically asks for his opinion is just bad form. Even when he gives his opinion, as with his vote, there's nothing to support it.

I'm also suspicious of McGriddle. His first move of the game is to play the bad scum card (as well as an implied "I'm the only non-invited player in an invitational" card), and his play since then has been almost purely reflexive. The one thing he's taken initiative on was 59, where he claims pops can't have be a power-role. At first, this just struck me as some sloppy analysis, but things really get interesting in 80, where he sneaks in a declaration of pops' scumminess when the post in question had only dealt with PR status regardless of alignment. These two elements (the sloppy analysis and unsupported accusation, that is) combine to:

And if he claims a PR I am more inclined to think he is lying than say if his meta didn't disagree.

A "Semi-Knowledgeable" vote eventually follows.

So, assuming McGriddle's suspicion of pops' is based on goat's case or some derivative of it, his only real contribution to the game has been a reason to preemptively doubt any non-vanilla claims pops might make. Funny how this obtuse piece of analysis just happens to play into the dominant wagon.

Unvote; Vote: McGriddle

[iamausername]

I think it would be fairly difficult to answer

as the only player who didn't join this game by invitation, how do you feel about the player list?

without playing an implied "I'm the only non-invited player in an invitational" card.

[McGriddle]

Well, I'm clearly not happy with Elmo's contribution so far. An unaccompanied random vote I can handle, but staying entirely out of discussion until somebody specifically asks for his opinion is just bad form. Even when he gives his opinion, as with his vote, there's nothing to support it.

I'm also suspicious of McGriddle. His first move of the game is to play the bad scum card

Wrong, somebody ASKED me if I was good scum or not. I didn't just come in here with a "boo hoo I am bad at scum and town" attitude.

(as well as an implied "I'm the only non-invited player in an invitational" card)

Again, wrong, I never even said that. Once. Somebody else brought that up. Seems like you are just trying to pin a case on me without much.

, and his play since then has been almost purely reflexive.

Untrue, I have been doing what I can to help town, and also answering any questions I have been asked. Could you tell me how that is scummy?

The one thing he's taken initiative on was 59, where he claims pops can't have be a power-role. At first, this just struck me as some sloppy analysis, but things really get interesting in 80, where he sneaks in a declaration of pops' scumminess when the post in question had only dealt with PR status regardless of alignment. These two elements (the sloppy analysis and unsupported accusation, that is) combine to:
]

I didn't sneak anything in, I was explaining my reasoning about said post. I was telling everyone that my reasoning behind it was not so we knew who had/didn't have a PR, but that because of this he is more likely to be scum, and less likely to be detrimental.

[Elmo]

An unaccompanied random vote I can handle, but staying entirely out of discussion until somebody specifically asks for his opinion is just bad form.

Why?

[Elmo]

hmm

mini-fos: ectomancer

unvote vote nabakovnabakov

[NabakovNabakov]

I think it would be fairly difficult to answer

as the only player who didn't join this game by invitation, how do you feel about the player list?

without playing an implied "I'm the only non-invited player in an invitational" card.

Point taken. I had seen his EBWOP below that and not the fact that he included that line in the first post.

@McGriddle:

Nobody asked you if you were bad or good scum. Username asked you how he would know if you were scum. You took that as an

opportunity

to declare that you were bad scum.

Untrue, I have been doing what I can to help town, and also answering any questions I have been asked. Could you tell me how that is scummy?

Most of your posting has been a reaction to things Username, Jahudo, RedCoyote, Incog, Goat, and (just recently), I have said about/asked of you. It was the Incog one that got me the most, considering that he wasn't even asking you anything. It put me in mind of a player skimming the thread for questions being asked of them and little else. Ultimately, this is scummy because no townie is ever going to catch scum by talking about himself, but scum have much more of an interest in controlling their image.

I didn't sneak anything in, I was explaining my reasoning about said post. I was telling everyone that my reasoning behind it was not so we knew who had/didn't have a PR, but that because of this he is more likely to be scum, and less likely to be detrimental.

Well, this might be an issue where the sloppiness of your analysis comes into play. So you have had an encounter with pops were he was a PR (which other players, including pops, have since identified as atypical anyway). How would you know that isn't how pops always acts? How do you know that pops doesn't react that way to having a town alignment (including vanilla)? How do you know that pops doesn't react that way to having a night action (including a scumkill)? There are so many moving variables related to this one piece of information, that any conclusion about the pops alignment that comes from it is extremely tenuous.

So are you really trying to tell me that your vote on pops is based entirely on that type of meta-analysis and had nothing to do with a goat-style case? Otherwise, why didn't you, at the very least, cite somebody else's case in 80? Even so, there's really no getting around the grammar of the thing:

I was only saying my opinion

that

he is not a PR

and that

he has a good chance at being scum

Red indicates that these were statements you have already made. Green is identifiable in 59.

Where did Purple come from?

@Elmo: Because I want to know what you're thinking, and I don't want to have to drag it out of you. When you do that, it comes out all guarded and gross, and who wants that?

[Elmo]

wtf is guarded and gross about answering questions?

[NabakovNabakov]

wtf is guarded and gross about answering questions?

Someone else has defined the parameters of your posting for you, and that gives you something to hide behind. I learn far more from a player who comes out of the blue to say "goatrevolt is prolly town" than I do from a player who is making the same comment in response to a question. Thinking about why a player posted the things he does (like why McGriddle jumped on Incog's not-really-a-question) gives insight into motivations. If your why is always "because I was asked," that's a big curtain over your motivations.

Independent of that, it's a pain to have to summon Elmo's opinion with a question mark every time something important happens. Why can't you just volunteer it?

[Elmo]

How am I supposed to know what you consider important?

[NabakovNabakov]

How am I supposed to know what you consider important?

Exactly. I would only know to summon you when something struck

me

as important. The only way I'll know what's important to you (and I want to) is for you to post without prompting.

[Elmo]

Oh, okay.

I don't find anything important thus far.

[Patrick]

I would like Patrick to say something concrete after his last post, hence my question to him about his suspects.

I'll be completely open here. I feel heavily not involved with the game, even though it's under 3 days old and not even a particularly boring start as so many of my others have been. It's been happening more and more to me lately (well, if 2 years is lately) and I don't know what causes it nor really what to do about it. I would suggest anyone who wants to read me should have a conversation with me, and maybe that'll help me as well. I've read the game with a view to forming more opinions, but no vote appeals to me yet. I'm looking to remedy that sooner rather than later, but equally won't vote just for the sake of voting. It hasn't led to anything good in the past.

Something about RedCoyote's posting seems strained. In his first post he felt the need to approve iamausername's random stage vote on him, which is odd. I somewhat agree with Ectomancer on his 73, and his arguing with Goat looks more like arguing than trying to discern anything. I'd like RedCoyote to clarify what his current stance on Goatrevolt is. He's called him unnatural and fake sounding but also said that he doesn't find him scummy.

Goatrevolt seems different to last time we played, where he was scum. My wariness at the moment is because in the game so much of day 1 was spent discussing the mechanics, and he pretty much completely snowed me.
I don't mind the pressure on popsofctown. I disagree with his view on towntells but I don't think it means much and I don't think trying to convince him he's wrong is going to help anything.
SerialClergyman I would guess is town.
Incognito actually seemed kind of off to me, but his last post changed my mind.
I don't have a problem with Ectomancer's play.
I have a weak town read on Elmo.

Reading over Nabakov's case against McGriddle, I found it unconvincing. I thought McGriddle's bad scum card read fairly naturally and not like something put in to try and lull people into a false sense of security (also, based on a small snapshot, I think it's true). The first point has a bit of a cooked up feel to it.

Point taken. I had seen his EBWOP below that and not the fact that he included that line in the first post.

The first line in the EBWOP is iamausername's question to McGriddle. What was it that you missed?

--
Incognito, what's your opinion of Red Coyote?

[Elmo]

:goodposting:

My wariness at the moment is because in the game so much of day 1 was spent discussing the mechanics, and

he pretty much completely snowed me

.

As in what?

[Goatrevolt]

Unvote, Vote NabakovNabakov

RedCoyote is neutral/townish.
SerialClergyman is neutral/scummy.
Incognito is town.
NabakovNabakov is scum.
Jahudo is ??.
Popsofctown is neutral/scummy.
Iamusername is neutral/townish.
Elmo is town.
Patrick is neutral/townish.
Ectomancer I can't read worth a damn.
McGriddle is town.

[NabakovNabakov]

To clarify. When I was talking about the first thing McGriddle did, I meant the very first paragraph of 21, where he primarily responded to the "How would I know if you were scum?" portion of username's question. He later EBWOPed a more specific response to the question directed just at him. This is why I didn't notice that both questions were quoted in 21. I was mainly interested in McGriddle's posting, so I glossed over and thought the first question only was quoted in 21.

For the record, it was only that response I was identifying as the "first thing," and insofar as it is a response

only

to the "how would I know you are scum?" question (and the fact that he EBWOPed in the later answer would indicate that McGriddle was only answering this question here), it still played the invitational card.