mini 958: Just Another Mafia Problem - GAME OVER!

[JDodge]

So as of current I have two votes on my wagon on page 3. Both are based off of policy lynching me. This is not fine for one of the voters, JDodge. He has made an anti policy lynching thread in MD so this is clearly odd for him to vote me solely based off that fact. This is especially considering the fact that this was a serious vote from JDodge and a serious vote means you would be a fan of their lynch.

QED:

Unvote, vote JD

Thanks! You're the exception to the rule. That is how much I really don't enjoy playing with you.

Tell me, for one, how can there be an exception to the rule since you used all definitive vocabulary in that thread?

Because I define those rules, thus if I choose to make an exception I can?

And for two, what makes me so damn special I deserve to be an exception to it?

Every single game I've ever played with you you skate by on the bare minimum then act like this when you're pressured on it, and I'm sick of it. So please, prove me wrong, then I won't care anymore. There's no point in playing with people who are not even playing the game, and at very least most of the chronic lurkers are like that for a

reason

.

And three, we can not trust that I am an exception to this rule as you are biased especially after a case has been written on you with a vote.

So I cannot define the exceptions to the theories by which I play - theories which I myself define I might add - because I might be biased in changing them.

Yeah.

I think I will comment on this part. Why do you ask these questions? How is placing a not random vote without reason that significant in the RVS?

There's random and there's not random. There is no RVS, and I forget who posted that thread about it (either Shea or Shanba, I think it was Shea) but I recall agreeing with it entirely. There is no RVS, there is no RQS, and I'm sick and tired of people defining stages within a dynamic game, especially considering that the circumstances change continually and considerably depending on the situation.

Now, if someone were to vote on page 15 with just "not random", how would you expect people to react? Why should we let people skate by just because it's page 2?

[Shotty to the Body]

Because page 2 is a totally different world than page 15? You just give this speech about how circumstances should be what we determine acceptability by and then say that we should ignore the huge circumstantial differences between pages 2 and 15. Whether you like it or not there is a certain zone at the beginning of the game where voting for little to no reason is perfectly acceptable and in fact expected of players so we can begin to generate content. If we replaced that with super serious late day play day 1 would like this.

vote atila the hun cuz i dont like barbarians

look at the roman's scummy voting lets lynch him

k

[Shattered Viewpoint]

So as of current I have two votes on my wagon on page 3. Both are based off of policy lynching me. This is not fine for one of the voters, JDodge. He has made an anti policy lynching thread in MD so this is clearly odd for him to vote me solely based off that fact. This is especially considering the fact that this was a serious vote from JDodge and a serious vote means you would be a fan of their lynch.

QED:

Unvote, vote JD

Thanks! You're the exception to the rule. That is how much I really don't enjoy playing with you.

Tell me, for one, how can there be an exception to the rule since you used all definitive vocabulary in that thread?

Because I define those rules, thus if I choose to make an exception I can?

And for two, what makes me so damn special I deserve to be an exception to it?

Every single game I've ever played with you you skate by on the bare minimum then act like this when you're pressured on it, and I'm sick of it. So please, prove me wrong, then I won't care anymore. There's no point in playing with people who are not even playing the game, and at very least most of the chronic lurkers are like that for a

reason

.

I can appreciate that you two have some history. However, JD, please clarify this: What 'reason' do you attribute to most chronic lurkers, and why do you feel that SSK doesn't have a valid 'reason?'

And three, we can not trust that I am an exception to this rule as you are biased especially after a case has been written on you with a vote.

So I cannot define the exceptions to the theories by which I play - theories which I myself define I might add - because I might be biased in changing them.

Yeah.

I see what you're saying -- really I do -- but I myself have some biases and inherent 'rules' that, while flexible to a certain extent,

don't change

all that much. If you have a bias, why would you change it without a very good reason?

I think I will comment on this part. Why do you ask these questions? How is placing a not random vote without reason that significant in the RVS?

There's random and there's not random. There is no RVS, and I forget who posted that thread about it (either Shea or Shanba, I think it was Shea) but I recall agreeing with it entirely. There is no RVS, there is no RQS, and I'm sick and tired of people defining stages within a dynamic game, especially considering that the circumstances change continually and considerably depending on the situation.

Now, if someone were to vote on page 15 with just "not random", how would you expect people to react? Why should we let people skate by just because it's page 2?

Tell me, how do you think we leave the "random" stage? How do you, personally, recognize that we have shifted? (I can appreciate that you may think this question null, as you seem to not acknowledge the existence of a "stage." Please answer regardless.) How do you think other people may recognize this, if different from your recognization?

---

Not random.

1. What is your reasoning
2. Why did you not give it to begin with
3. What do you stand to gain from not giving reasoning aside from obscuring your motivation for voting someone and keeping from sparking discussion?

I think I will comment on this part. Why do you ask these questions? How is placing a not random vote without reason that significant in the RVS?

Tell me, how do you think we leave the "random" stage? How do you, personally, recognize that we have shifted? How do you think other people may recognize this, if different from your recognization?

[hasdgfas]

Hasdfas, I can understand your objection to running the game like a routine, but is there any reason you can't answer the questions? I mean, it starts people talking, no matter what you call it.

There is no reason I can't answer the questions, but talking for the sake of talking is not useful at all. I will answer them in my next post after I answer some other things.

@has: If you can't deal with a few feathers ruffling between two other players I'm sorry, but it's not my problem.

feathers ruffling I'm ok with. That was a straight-up insult fest. Totally different.

Not random.

1. What is your reasoning
2. Why did you not give it to begin with
3. What do you stand to gain from not giving reasoning aside from obscuring your motivation for voting someone and keeping from sparking discussion?

1) I gave it earlier. I don't like him voting No Lynch, even in "RVS".
2) I wanted to see the reactions to a "not random" vote when most people are expecting RVS,
3) I was planning to give it, I just wanted to see reactions.

getting to those questions now

[hasdgfas]

I think we should advance to the next stage, the Random Question Stage. I'll ask some questions:

1. What previous experience do you have with Mafia games?
2. How would you describe your playstyle?
3. What would you consider your best Mafia game and your worst?
4. Do you prefer Random Question Stage or Random Voting Stage and why?
5. If we've gather no more information toDay and you were the deciding vote, who would you vote based off of what we have?
6. What time zone are you and when do you post?
7. Do you get nervous before posting?

1) I've been playing quite a bit on my floor this semester, and, as you can see by join date, I have a couple years of experience on this site.
2) Depends on the game.
3) Best was probably the first Mini Normal I was in. Can't remember the number or anything as it was over two years ago, but Rishi modded and I was scum with Elias. Neither of us got a "real" vote for the entire game. Worst was Medieval. I was never caught up with the game and claimed my real role as scum, lurked through the whole game, it was a disaster.
4) I hate both, especially as I've never heard of Random Question Stage before. Did you make it up? If not, where did you get it from?
5) Look at where I'm voting and why.
6) Eastern. I post when I have something to say.
7) Nope.

Now let me ask you a couple non-random questions.
Why are you breaking the game down into stages? It is, as JD says, a dynamic game with changing situations and breaking it into stages is just a bad idea.
Why do you feel that "RQS" is useful at all? Sure, they answer questions and talk, but as I said, that's useless if it doesn't bring the game forward. Why do these questions move the game forward?
What games have you finished on-site?

[JDodge]

Because page 2 is a totally different world than page 15? You just give this speech about how circumstances should be what we determine acceptability by and then say that we should ignore the huge circumstantial differences between pages 2 and 15. Whether you like it or not there is a certain zone at the beginning of the game where voting for little to no reason is perfectly acceptable and in fact expected of players so we can begin to generate content. If we replaced that with super serious late day play day 1 would like this.

vote atila the hun cuz i dont like barbarians

look at the roman's scummy voting lets lynch him

k

Awwww, you're like me circa 2008 :3

Yes, there are huge circumstantial differences between pages 2 and 15. That is completely irrelevant to my point, which is that if a vote has a reason,

you should state your reason

. There is no such thing as a vote with no reason to it - randomness is a reason, not liking a person (MEMEME) is a reason, anything is a reason. Not giving a reason is pointless - any "reactions" you get are going to be less than if you'd just stated your reason beforehand. All you're going to get is a bunch of minor psychological feedback that has minimal relevance to anything more than whether or not someone is bothered by it.

I can appreciate that you two have some history. However, JD, please clarify this: What 'reason' do you attribute to most chronic lurkers, and why do you feel that SSK doesn't have a valid 'reason?'

I attribute boredom with the game to chronic lurkers. SSK signs up for so many games, I doubt he'd be "bored" with things, hence I believe him to just be taking the piss, which I believe to be a good reason to off him.

I see what you're saying -- really I do -- but I myself have some biases and inherent 'rules' that, while flexible to a certain extent, don't change all that much. If you have a bias, why would you change it without a very good reason?

I have no solid rules. Anyone reading my writings on theory can see that I speak solely in theoretical senses, and that I myself cannot declare them to be true - I do only what I feel necessary for achieving my win condition, and nothing more.

Tell me, how do you think we leave the "random" stage? How do you, personally, recognize that we have shifted? (I can appreciate that you may think this question null, as you seem to not acknowledge the existence of a "stage." Please answer regardless.) How do you think other people may recognize this, if different from your recognization?

I feel there are no stages because it is a dynamic game, so no, I'm not going to give you a cop-out answer so that someone can later point to that and say OH LOOK OH LOOK OH LOOK. I don't see any reason to demarcate a game into stages, nor do I see any reason to have a random vote stage whatsoever. Anything even minorly justified (such as my own vote) is going to be inherently better than random because you will spark discussion (such as this one) and get the ball rolling, as opposed to not sparking discussion (see everything else) and then suddenly saying OH WE NEED TO PLAY THE GAME NOW.

I feel that the recognition of a random voting stage by the majority of the MafiaScum populace is a tragic lack of understanding in the basic theoretical concepts behind the game itself.

3) I was planning to give it, I just wanted to see reactions.

What reactions did you see, and why was this important to your methodology?

[Shotty to the Body]

Night starts problem solved. =P

[hasdgfas]

3) I was planning to give it, I just wanted to see reactions.

What reactions did you see, and why was this important to your methodology?

I saw you calling me out and I saw Elias and socrates wondering why I voted. It's important to how I'm playing because I want to see how people react to things. I really wanted to wait for rover, but I sensed tension from more than just you regarding that vote, and I figured "wait for rover" wouldn't have worked at that point.

Basically, I find it useful to place a vote like that very early in the game to get us discussing things early and so I can see reactions and gauge why they react that way.

[Shotty to the Body]

So was there any real reason beyond 'gauging reactions' or was that it?

Why do you think people reacted the way they did since we're on the subject? Have you any insights about their alignment that you didn't before?

[hasdgfas]

So was there any real reason beyond 'gauging reactions' or was that it?

I have said this twice now, please read. I don't like people voting for no lynch, even in "RVS"

Right now I do have some thoughts, but thoughts on that right now is useless, IMO. I need more gameplay to work from. It's part of a whole, those reactions.

[JDodge]

3) I was planning to give it, I just wanted to see reactions.

What reactions did you see, and why was this important to your methodology?

I saw you calling me out and I saw Elias and socrates wondering why I voted. It's important to how I'm playing because I want to see how people react to things. I really wanted to wait for rover, but I sensed tension from more than just you regarding that vote, and I figured "wait for rover" wouldn't have worked at that point.

So your motivation for revealing it when you did was that you were worried it would bring heat upon you, right? (Note: This is in and of itself not an incriminating question; self-preservation isn't just a scum thing tbh)

Basically, I find it useful to place a vote like that very early in the game to get us discussing things early and so I can see reactions and gauge why they react that way.

Fair enough.

[Shotty to the Body]

Just like being a felon doesn't ruin your chances on most job applications amirite?

[Shattered Viewpoint]

I can appreciate that you two have some history. However, JD, please clarify this: What 'reason' do you attribute to most chronic lurkers, and why do you feel that SSK doesn't have a valid 'reason?'

I attribute boredom with the game to chronic lurkers. SSK signs up for so many games, I doubt he'd be "bored" with things, hence I believe him to just be taking the piss, which I believe to be a good reason to off him.

Fair enough. I know nothing of his history.

I see what you're saying -- really I do -- but I myself have some biases and inherent 'rules' that, while flexible to a certain extent, don't change all that much. If you have a bias, why would you change it without a very good reason?

I have no solid rules. Anyone reading my writings on theory can see that I speak solely in theoretical senses, and that I myself cannot declare them to be true - I do only what I feel necessary for achieving my win condition, and nothing more.

I shall search out your wisdom.

Tell me, how do you think we leave the "random" stage? How do you, personally, recognize that we have shifted? (I can appreciate that you may think this question null, as you seem to not acknowledge the existence of a "stage." Please answer regardless.) How do you think other people may recognize this, if different from your recognization?

I feel there are no stages because it is a dynamic game, so no, I'm not going to give you a cop-out answer so that someone can later point to that and say OH LOOK OH LOOK OH LOOK. I don't see any reason to demarcate a game into stages, nor do I see any reason to have a random vote stage whatsoever. Anything even minorly justified (such as my own vote) is going to be inherently better than random because you will spark discussion (such as this one) and get the ball rolling, as opposed to not sparking discussion (see everything else) and then suddenly saying OH WE NEED TO PLAY THE GAME NOW.

I feel that the recognition of a random voting stage by the majority of the MafiaScum populace is a tragic lack of understanding in the basic theoretical concepts behind the game itself.

Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it isn't there. Same thing with whether you feel it's unimportant. (I'm not saying it's important, per se; it's just there. See my rambling on stages, below.)

---

Now let me ask you a couple non-random questions.
Why are you breaking the game down into stages? It is, as JD says, a dynamic game with changing situations and breaking it into stages is just a bad idea.
Why do you feel that "RQS" is useful at all? Sure, they answer questions and talk, but as I said, that's useless if it doesn't bring the game forward. Why do these questions move the game forward?
What games have you finished on-site?

I assume these are open for anyone to answer.

As far as "stages" go, yes I agree that the game is dynamic, but anything can be broken down into observable stages without necessarily affecting (or inflicting upon, as it were) the structure of the observed phenomenon. The trick here is delineating where and when that stage-shift occurs.

[Elias_the_thief]

Hey guys, I would just like to take a moment to point out how useless this theory conversation is. Regardless of whether or not the RVS exists, proving it one way or another certainly doesn't find scum, its simply divides the players into "right" and "wrong". So what say we move on? Those of you who feel the RVS exists probably also feel that we're out of it at this point anyhow.

hey shotty, what is 86 in response to? I know you're trying to mock someone, based on the "amirite", I just can't figure out who.

for has: mini 515 =D best game evaaaa

[ConfidAnon]

Hey guys, I would just like to take a moment to point out how useless this theory conversation is. Regardless of whether or not the RVS exists, proving it one way or another certainly doesn't find scum, its simply divides the players into "right" and "wrong". So what say we move on? Those of you who feel the RVS exists probably also feel that we're out of it at this point anyhow.

I completely agree with this.

[Elias_the_thief]

Hey guys, I would just like to take a moment to point out how useless this theory conversation is. Regardless of whether or not the RVS exists, proving it one way or another certainly doesn't find scum, its simply divides the players into "right" and "wrong". So what say we move on? Those of you who feel the RVS exists probably also feel that we're out of it at this point anyhow.

I completely agree with this.

its cool you agree and all, but how exactly is this post any more useful to the game then the theory conversation I was just discouraging?

[Super Smash Bros. Fan]

Now let me ask you a couple non-random questions.
Why are you breaking the game down into stages? It is, as JD says, a dynamic game with changing situations and breaking it into stages is just a bad idea.

It helps me think better. I know that if I need to look at evidence, I'll be able to look at these questions and the random posts and they could possibly help us later on.

Why do you feel that "RQS" is useful at all? Sure, they answer questions and talk, but as I said, that's useless if it doesn't bring the game forward. Why do these questions move the game forward?

I look at the way people reacts to the question and how much efforts they put into it. Therefore, it can be useful for starting leads on other people. Not only that, it allows less oppertunities for a mislynch to happen later on in the game.

What games have you finished on-site?

I have currently finished no games on the site.

I do, however, play Mafia games off-site as well. I've completed two games on Smash World Forums. They are Smash Bros. Mafia and Newbie Mafia 5 in that site. I self-lynched myself on Day 2 in Smash Bros. Mafia and was engamed on Newbie Mafia 5.

It's not much, but it's a start I guess.

[Shattered Viewpoint]

Why do you feel that "RQS" is useful at all? Sure, they answer questions and talk, but as I said, that's useless if it doesn't bring the game forward. Why do these questions move the game forward?

I look at the way people reacts to the question and how much efforts they put into it. Therefore, it can be useful for starting leads on other people.

Not only that, it allows less oppertunities for a mislynch to happen later on in the game.

I am really looking forward to an explanation for the bolded statement.

[Super Awesome Mega Zord!]

Makes sense. I voted shattered because he voted for the mod, which doesn't really accomplish anything. Then he unvoted without voting anyone else, which continues to accomplish, well, nothing.

I think you should respond to this.

Unvote, Vote: Shattered Viewpoint

[Socrates]

So, Elias and Cow, what is the delineation you make between rover's and Shattered's initial votes that you vote for one and not the other? Both are useless and form no connection with another player.

[hasdgfas]

3) I was planning to give it, I just wanted to see reactions.

What reactions did you see, and why was this important to your methodology?

I saw you calling me out and I saw Elias and socrates wondering why I voted. It's important to how I'm playing because I want to see how people react to things. I really wanted to wait for rover, but I sensed tension from more than just you regarding that vote, and I figured "wait for rover" wouldn't have worked at that point.

So your motivation for revealing it when you did was that you were worried it would bring heat upon you, right? (Note: This is in and of itself not an incriminating question; self-preservation isn't just a scum thing tbh).

That's what it boils down to. There's a slightly longer, more convoluted explanation, but yeah.

Just like being a felon doesn't ruin your chances on most job applications amirite?

I don't like this. Feels like you're trying to discredit JDodge and make me more suspicious of his motivations. Why ask this question? Especially in this way?

So, Elias and Cow, what is the delineation you make between rover's and Shattered's initial votes that you vote for one and not the other? Both are useless and form no connection with another player.

One is actually voteable and will hurt the town. One is unvoteable. There's really not much of a difference though, I agree. I'm just slightly less anti-mod vote. Comes from having played a Mind Screw game, I think.

Now let me ask you a couple non-random questions.
Why are you breaking the game down into stages? It is, as JD says, a dynamic game with changing situations and breaking it into stages is just a bad idea.

It helps me think better. I know that if I need to look at evidence, I'll be able to look at these questions and the random posts and they could possibly help us later on.

Have you used this strategy before in a completed game? If so, link please.

Why do you feel that "RQS" is useful at all? Sure, they answer questions and talk, but as I said, that's useless if it doesn't bring the game forward. Why do these questions move the game forward?

I look at the way people reacts to the question and how much efforts they put into it. Therefore, it can be useful for starting leads on other people. Not only that, it allows less oppertunities for a mislynch to happen later on in the game.

Please explain this more. I still don't understand how you couldn't just do this by asking questions without calling it a "stage" or why you couldn't just do this as a first post instead of RVS.

[hasdgfas]

Missed this before:

Now let me ask you a couple non-random questions.
Why are you breaking the game down into stages? It is, as JD says, a dynamic game with changing situations and breaking it into stages is just a bad idea.
Why do you feel that "RQS" is useful at all? Sure, they answer questions and talk, but as I said, that's useless if it doesn't bring the game forward. Why do these questions move the game forward?
What games have you finished on-site?

I assume these are open for anyone to answer.

As far as "stages" go, yes I agree that the game is dynamic, but anything can be broken down into observable stages without necessarily affecting (or inflicting upon, as it were) the structure of the observed phenomenon. The trick here is delineating where and when that stage-shift occurs.

It wasn't actually open for anyone, as it was directed at him, but why do you think that breaking it down into stages helps anything? What does saying "Here's RVS and here's RQS" do at all?

[Elias_the_thief]

So, Elias and Cow, what is the delineation you make between rover's and Shattered's initial votes that you vote for one and not the other? Both are useless and form no connection with another player.

I had to choose one. Shattered viewpoint is just the one that stuck out to me. In retrospect, no lynch is more anti-town, but I don't think one is significantly scummier than the other, especially on day 1.

[Elias_the_thief]

Oh, and for purpose of clarification hasdgfas, you say in response to SSBF's questions look where my vote is and why. But your vote is on shotty, and the post in which you vote is for the most part a vague point that you left the site because of arguing in games. So...are you voting for shotty because he was part of that argument, and fos'ing shattered for the same reason? and if so, why did shotty deserve the vote and shattered deserve the fos?

[JDodge]

I see what you're saying -- really I do -- but I myself have some biases and inherent 'rules' that, while flexible to a certain extent, don't change all that much. If you have a bias, why would you change it without a very good reason?

I have no solid rules. Anyone reading my writings on theory can see that I speak solely in theoretical senses, and that I myself cannot declare them to be true - I do only what I feel necessary for achieving my win condition, and nothing more.

I shall search out your wisdom.

Look in MD, you should be able to find the first Book of JD thread; that thread has a link to the first. Read the first one first (obviously) or the second one will make significantly less sense.

Tell me, how do you think we leave the "random" stage? How do you, personally, recognize that we have shifted? (I can appreciate that you may think this question null, as you seem to not acknowledge the existence of a "stage." Please answer regardless.) How do you think other people may recognize this, if different from your recognization?

I feel there are no stages because it is a dynamic game, so no, I'm not going to give you a cop-out answer so that someone can later point to that and say OH LOOK OH LOOK OH LOOK. I don't see any reason to demarcate a game into stages, nor do I see any reason to have a random vote stage whatsoever. Anything even minorly justified (such as my own vote) is going to be inherently better than random because you will spark discussion (such as this one) and get the ball rolling, as opposed to not sparking discussion (see everything else) and then suddenly saying OH WE NEED TO PLAY THE GAME NOW.

I feel that the recognition of a random voting stage by the majority of the MafiaScum populace is a tragic lack of understanding in the basic theoretical concepts behind the game itself.

Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it isn't there. Same thing with whether you feel it's unimportant. (I'm not saying it's important, per se; it's just there. See my rambling on stages, below.)

I didn't say I disagree with it, I said that delineated stages do not exist. I say that no delineation should attempt to be made, for that will lead solely to harmful arguments over delineation.

As far as "stages" go, yes I agree that the game is dynamic, but anything can be broken down into observable stages without necessarily affecting (or inflicting upon, as it were) the structure of the observed phenomenon. The trick here is delineating where and when that stage-shift occurs.

There should be no delineation, because there are other ways to start the game. Implying that a game will always go into observable stages is fallacious.

Hey guys, I would just like to take a moment to point out how useless this theory conversation is. Regardless of whether or not the RVS exists, proving it one way or another certainly doesn't find scum, its simply divides the players into "right" and "wrong". So what say we move on? Those of you who feel the RVS exists probably also feel that we're out of it at this point anyhow.

It's more helpful than your nothing!

It helps me think better. I know that if I need to look at evidence, I'll be able to look at these questions and the random posts and they could possibly help us later on.

Then why feel the need to even state "RQS TIME!"? Why the need to wait if you just want something to go on later?

Not only that, it allows less oppertunities for a mislynch to happen later on in the game.

Enlighten me as to how.

That's what it boils down to. There's a slightly longer, more convoluted explanation, but yeah.

I'm not afraid of words. I'd like to see the longer explanation.