Newbie 982 - Shadows of Death, Game Over!

[Akira]

Lurking may seem to be a mafia tactic, but the fact that we revealed this in the thread means that now it's safer to say that active lurking is a mafia tactic. After all, no scum in his right state of mind would lurk after hearing people say "lurking is for scums."
And it's always gonna be useless for a townie, that's for sure.

@Valk: Looks to me like you're avoiding a "good discussion".
2k3 says: "Yes, discussion is nice, but the good discussions (one's that actually help) don't even start until after an RVS."

[Akira]

((Sorry, I pressed submit by accident, this is the continuation of my post :p))

And you (Valk) say: "So what is the point in even starting one." Yet you agree that "good discussions" start after RVS. It makes no sense (if you're a townie).

Oh and this is my first game of mafia ever, not just the first on the site.

[Valkyrie_Hrist]

You completely missed my point. 2k3, said that good discussions don't even start until after RVS. My entire point was that we should just skip the RVS and go straight into good discussion, such as this one. We've completely bypassed the RVS by instead discussing if we should have RVS or not, which has subsequently led into this.

I think you should go back and reread my post. Or perhaps I needed to word it differently. I wasn't agreeing that we should have RVS, I was agreeing that good discussion didn't start until RVS was over. So there was absolutely no need for RVS.

[LoakaMossi]

I also think that the RVS is pointless, becuase it doesn't start good discussion, and it seems to throw suspicion on townies more often than scum. And when someone is randomly voted for, they can't properly defend themeselves, and end up looking like scum.

[Akira]

@Valk: Oh, I see, it still sounds a bit distorted but it doesn't matter much now.

I have a question for veterans: when people decide to RVS, do they only release their random vote at the end of the phase or do they directly accuse them during discussion?

[MichelSableheart]

I have no problem with starting the game by voting players in order to draw a reaction. However, a random vote is very unlikely to actually get a reaction. It is, in my opinion, far better to make an actual argument for why someone is scum, no matter how weak that argument may be.

My argument that Aurorus was trying to stifle discussion completely was not joking. It was a rather strong accusation given the information available, but it was a possible explanation for his behaviour. In fact, it's an explanation I still believe possible.

In my opinion, there's nothing rude about starting the game before everyone has confirmed, especially when the mod leaves the thread open. In fact, I have quite often seen mods officially start the game before the last couple of players have confirmed. Furthermore, if the mod is searching for a replacement, we also don't go twiddle our thumbs. Not everyone needs to be present to play.

Why did you "scold" Aurorus if Valkyrie_Hrist was the first one to suggest waiting?

I read Valkyrie's post more as surprise that discussion was already starting, rather then the demand to stop discussion. In fact, her question "shouldn't we wait?" encourages other players to answer, thereby encouraging discussion. Aurorus, on the other hand, flat out stated that he wouldn't discuss till everyone had confirmed. He was guilty of stifling discussion, Valkyrie was not.

Regarding lurking: I personally make a difference between active lurking (posting enough to not be replaced, while posting little to no content) and inactivity (a failure to post at all, likely to lead to replacement). The usage of the term "lurking" for what essentially is inactivity creates needless confusion. In my experience, town players and scumplayers alike can become inactive, but there is slightly more incentive for scum to active lurk then there is for town.

I have a question for veterans: when people decide to RVS, do they only release their random vote at the end of the phase or do they directly accuse them during discussion?

The RVS is only a term used to describe what usually happens. It is not an actual stage of the game. What you usually see is that player immediately vote, and those votes are moved till they slightly become more serious. In fact, it's rather unique that noone has voted yet.

I'm slightly annoyed at players who say Random Voting is bad, but who also don't make any accussations. Can we actually start discussing who is mafia, please? Especially Valkyrie and Loaka seem to be guilty of this.

Aurorus is worse though. Not only did he stifle discussion by flat out stating that he wouldn't discuss during confirmations, he also intentionally steered the discussion towards theory discussion with his questions about experience and lurking.

Vote: AurorusVox

[Valkyrie_Hrist]

I definitely think we need to move away from discussing RVS, because we may as well have actually just done the RVS in the time we've been discussing it, however, certain people haven't posted enough for us to get information, which is understandable, the game has only been open for around a day or so.
2k3 did make me a little bit suspicious with his desire to go through with the RVS, seeing as how we'd pretty much all posted saying we didn't want to do it, especially because RVS can be rather random in it's regards to benefitting the town. Still, I don't think thats enough evidence to base a vote off of.

Well, look at that, I said I didn't want to discuss RVS anymore, yet my only suspicion so far is based on it.

Hopefully, now we've commented on the lurking, none of the Mafia will do it, and none of the town will be foolish enough to do so, promoting more discussion.

Outside of that, I don't think we've enough to go on yet, without more people posting. I do agree Aurorus did seem like he was trying to stifle discussion, but I don't know if he meant it in that way. Can we get some clarification Aurorus?
To clarify what I said, it was in regards to Zauper commenting on Guybrush when no one else had confirmed. Just seemed odd to try and start a discussion with no one else having yet confirmed. Hope this clears it up for people.

[Guybrush]

ANSWERS

@Guybrush, at this stage of the game, do you prefer the same set of general questions aimed at everyone, or individual questions to each player, and why?

I usually give my ~5 general questions at the beginning of a game, but when I see something specific, I'll direct a question toward that person.
So, individual questions are triggered by other events, and general questions are triggered by lack of them.
It's obvious then which one is my favorite.

@everyone else:
-How many games have you played on this site?
-What do you make of lurking?

I guess you won't mind if I answer as well.
I played 3 games I believe. First was stopped during day 1. Second one I played until the ~end. 3rd one I needed a replacement and promised myself never to be in the same position again. So I have 1 full game. Take that in consideration when thinking about my SE status.

Lurking can happen for 2 reasons - lack of time (scum or town) and avoiding discussion (scum). I haven't been able to tell the difference yet, so I don't make a big deal out of it. What I know for sure is the more information you provide me, the more I'm confident with my read on you. If you give me less information, I'll be more inclined to think you're scum in case I don't have any better options. So, yeah - lurkers might get my vote.

I need a good reason not to start an RVS and I need somon to persuade me not to start one.

Well, for starters you would look ridiculous if you went with RVS at this point. We had some stuff going on, and it would look a bit odd if you now step in and say "I'm voting for Akira, because it sounds like Kira, who killed lots of people. Meaning he's scum." The purpose of RVS is to get the discussion going. We have the discussion. If you now insist on RVS, I would feel you're doing it just to fill your time. And because it's easier for you to do meaningless stuff. But hey, that's just me. A little chaos might be good. So do your thing if you feel like it.

[2003041]

Like I stated previously, this -is- only my 3rd game ever played and I was one to think RVS started to open discussions more freely and reveal scum later in the game, even if there is a D1 townie lynch. I wouldn't jump as far for an RVS with what GuyBrush gave as a reason for (IE I'm voting for Akira because it sounds like Kira) just because I would try to give a more legitimate rason. I think as soon as more people start talking, we can have a better idea on who to start voting for. I will not start an RVS for this game mainly because I want to lynch someone who really looks suspicious than RVS a townie right off the bat.

[Guybrush]

COMMENTS

(Answer or don't. You decide. We can agree to disagree.)

Ah, well pointed out - I thought we were still waiting for some people to confirm. To clarify, by majority, I meant, like, at least eight of the nine people.

I find it a bit unusual to state you were waiting for 8 people, when there were 7 confirmed at the point you commented.
So, 7 is not OK, but 8 is. I don't know how did you draw that line between 7 and 8.

I read Valkyrie's post more as surprise that discussion was already starting, rather then the demand to stop discussion. In fact, her question "shouldn't we wait?" encourages other players to answer, thereby encouraging discussion. Aurorus, on the other hand, flat out stated that he wouldn't discuss till everyone had confirmed. He was guilty of stifling discussion, Valkyrie was not.

I'm not seeing it as you do.
She didn't say "shouldn't we wait". She said "why don't we wait". As a suggestion. Not as an encouragement for discussion.
And even though it has a question mark at the end, I'm not seeing it as a question that's waiting for an answer.
And not to mention, since we're weighing in on "who did worse", Valk used "we", and Aurorus used "I".

QUESTIONS

(I'm looking for an answer.)

I do agree Aurorus did seem like he was trying to stifle discussion, but I don't know if he meant it in that way. Can we get some clarification Aurorus?
To clarify what I said, it was in regards to Zauper commenting on Guybrush when no one else had confirmed. Just seemed odd to try and start a discussion with

no one else having yet confirmed

. Hope this clears it up for people.

From where I stand, you're accusing the guy for doing exactly the same as you did.
So I need more clarification from you.
He stated he wanted to wait for

8

people (I still don't get it).
Are you now saying you wanted to wait for

2

people? ("no one else having yet confirmed")
Valk, please explain how is his "let's wait" different from yours "let's wait".
And state your position just to be clear - is it OK to discuss during the confirmation phase or not?

[ooBAZZoo]

I thought I'd begin by saying a hello to everyone. I live in Essex (uk) and have just completed an Enlgish Lit degree at Birmingham Uni and am now one of the many unemployed youths living in Britain struggling to find a job. I've never played a mafia game before (on this site, any other site, or in real life) although have been reading through some previous games which (to the other newbies out there) I probably found more useful than the wiki pages. I hadn't even heard of the game before a couple of days ago but am really facinated by the concept, esspecially on a psychological level (if someone hasn't already done a study on this type of game they should). <-- I don't know if this kind of intro is expected, but I thought I'd include it anyway.

In response to the discusion on RVS, my limited experience of the game means I can't really have a strong opinion. I reckon that it's one way of begining discusion, however in this game we've got off to a decent degree of discussion already so it isn't neaded here. (probably a time and a place sort of thing is what I'm getting at) As a result I wont be doing any random voting today

In answer to AmourusVox's question on lurking (again judging from inexperience) I'd say it's difficult to give a clear cut answer. Although on many of the threads I've read, as well as this one, people identify it as a scum-tell or a way of avoiding unwanted attention, I believe there are probably other reasons for it. Either being busy (I'm sure we all have lives), or simply not having anything to say. On this last point, when attention is off someone (particularly if they're new to the game and slightly overwhelmed by the flying accusations) it seems pointless to but-in with an unimportant post unless it contributes to the discussion. I intent to bear lurking in mind when identifying the scum, but probably wont base an entire case over it.

A question to those who were against the RVS - Amourus and Guybrush I believe it was - there was mention of a RQS: how does that work and what information would you idealy like to acquire from it?

Other than that, my apologies if I make any mistakes and I'm looking forward seeing how my first ever game unfolds. x

[ooBAZZoo]

Sorry Guybrush, you kinda anwered by question as i was typing my post, I didn't quite understand what that page was after I hit submit.
More of an admin question: so that I don't have to keep finding this in the forum should I click 'subscribe topic' or 'bookmark topic'? x

[2003041]

Actually, you can do what I've been doing since I've joined and just click the 'View Your Posts' clickable to the right of the 'User control Panel'. That's what I do, but you don't have to do it.

[Guybrush]

Like I stated previously, this -is- only my 3rd game ever played and I was one to think RVS started to open discussions more freely and reveal scum later in the game, even if there is a D1 townie lynch. I wouldn't jump as far for an RVS with what GuyBrush gave as a reason for (IE I'm voting for Akira because it sounds like Kira) just because I would try to give a more legitimate rason. I think as soon as more people start talking, we can have a better idea on who to start voting for. I will not start an RVS for this game mainly because I want to lynch someone who really looks suspicious than RVS a townie right off the bat.

RVS = "Akira-Kira-killer-scum"
Anything with a legitimate reason is not RVS. (that's how RVS ends anyway)
So feel free to vote with any shred of legitimate reason.
And I never heard of RVS resulting with a lynch. So, no one is getting randomly lynched.
RVS is not dangerous, it's just ... well, not that challenging.

A question to those who were against the RVS - Amourus and Guybrush I believe it was - there was mention of a RQS: how does that work and what information would you idealy like to acquire from it?

RVS = Random Voting Stage

gives little (or no) information.
A - You are from UK. You must be scum.
B - No I'm not. Ha ha ha. Fun fun.

RQS = Random Questioning Stage

gives (ideally) meaningful information. (not always to find scum, but to have better insight about other people)
A - How old are you? What's your experience? What's your position on Lynch-all-Liars policy? Walls of text - yes or no?
B - 17 years old. 5 completed games. I'm up for lynching liars 100%. No walls of text please.
You'll spend your time here deciding who's lying and who's not. Some questions might help you to better understand people around you.

Put yourself in shoes of an investigator. Would you start off by jumping in people's faces and yelling "you killed Mrs Puff", or would you start with asking some questions?

[ooBAZZoo]

[This is my first attempt at inquisition]
@ 2k3 - although your last post was meant to be helpful (of which I'm thankful) it was also, like your post before that at 2:22, full of excessive clarification- "That's what I do, but you don't have to do it" appears to me like you're too ready to cover your ground and justify what you say. Is your over garrulous behaviour because a) its simply how you are or the way you write? b) because you know that, in this game generally, people are always ready to pounce on an unjustified answer? or c) because you have some exceedingly scummy business to hide? x

(p.s. do we all see the same time, e.g. this post at around 3.33?)

[Guybrush]

(p.s. do we all see the same time, e.g. this post at around 3.33?)

It depends on the time zone people are in. So we don't all see the same time.

The usual way of referencing other posts is:
a) quoting
b) using post number (your last message would be #39 - it's displayed next to date & time)
c) using ISO number (your last message would be ISO #3 - after using "display posts by user" -> ooBAZZoo -> Go)

You'll use 3rd option later on in the game, when there will be lots of posts, and you will want to filter through posts of a specific person.

[ooBAZZoo]

Sorry to post again, but I wanted to clarify something with you Guybrush.
When you said - "if X asks a question and directs it to Y (and you're neither of those), then please don't reply\comment before Y does" - by "dont reply\comment" did you mean do not post at all, or do not post in relation to the specific issues addressed in that question? x

[2003041]

[This is my first attempt at inquisition]
@ 2k3 - although your last post was meant to be helpful (of which I'm thankful) it was also, like your post before that at 2:22, full of excessive clarification- "That's what I do, but you don't have to do it" appears to me like you're too ready to cover your ground and justify what you say. Is your over garrulous behaviour because a) its simply how you are or the way you write? b) because you know that, in this game generally, people are always ready to pounce on an unjustified answer? or c) because you have some exceedingly scummy business to hide? x

(p.s. do we all see the same time, e.g. this post at around 3.33?)

Part of this is that not all people are like me. Even though I may use one method, you might use another method. We're completely different people and part of my personality is to try and satisfy both parties. Also, I don't get how me saying "That's what I do..." is a way for me to 'cover ground', as you put it. Can you explain why this would be? It just seems like an odd statement when I was clearly posting a helping comment with no other intention behind it.

[Guybrush]

Sorry to post again, but I wanted to clarify something with you Guybrush.
When you said - "if X asks a question and directs it to Y (and you're neither of those), then please don't reply\comment before Y does" - by "dont reply\comment" did you mean do not post at all, or do not post in relation to the specific issues addressed in that question? x

Definitely this -

"do not post in relation to the specific issues addressed in that question"

.
Feel free to post anything unrelated at any time.

There are some borderline cases though.

This would be OK for C to do:

A - Mr B is scum. He did THIS and THIS. B, defend yourself.
<<Waiting for B>>
C - Yes. He also did THAT. Defend from that as well.

This wouldn't be OK for C to do:

A - Mr B is scum. He did THIS and THAT. B, defend yourself.
<<Waiting for B>>
C - No. I don't think THAT makes him scum. A, you're crazy.

I go by the rule - feel free to add fuel to the fire, but do not remove it before defendant tries to do it him\herself.
After B defends, C can add (join attack) or remove (join defend) fuel according to his\her opinion, with no restrictions.
*Also when joining in for the attack before the defense, don't abuse it. The focus might be removed from original point.
Just use your common sense and whatever you do, consider both sides.

[ooBAZZoo]

@ 2k3 - Firstly, I feel a bit bad for singling you out you after your helpful post, and was trying to be more inquisitive than accusatory.
In explanation: your post #37 appeared to me as garrulous. As another example, the final statement in post #9 - "it's the same" - struck me as a clarification that was not necessary to our understanding of your post. I did not mean to imply that in the specifics of your post you were attempting to cover what you had said. Instead I was implying that this style of writing could be an indication of somebody who is perhaps overly concerned with justifying what they say, and always covering their ground.
What I thought was more likely when I asked the question is that: the way in which you've posted is merely a consequence of your writing style (as you said we're all different). I was, to a degree, merely rattling some cages. However I'm glad I asked the question now, as I'm sure something can be read into the way in which you answered it (even if I don't know what that is myself).
What do other people think about this, and about writing styles in general? x

[2003041]

@ 2k3 - Firstly, I feel a bit bad for singling you out you after your helpful post, and was trying to be more inquisitive than accusatory.
In explanation: your post #37 appeared to me as garrulous. As another example, the final statement in post #9 - "it's the same" - struck me as a clarification that was not necessary to our understanding of your post. I did not mean to imply that in the specifics of your post you were attempting to cover what you had said. Instead I was implying that this style of writing could be an indication of somebody who is perhaps overly concerned with justifying what they say, and always covering their ground.
What I thought was more likely when I asked the question is that: the way in which you've posted is merely a consequence of your writing style (as you said we're all different). I was, to a degree, merely rattling some cages. However I'm glad I asked the question now, as I'm sure something can be read into the way in which you answered it (even if I don't know what that is myself).
What do other people think about this, and about writing styles in general? x

Truth be told, I actually have Asperger's Syndrome, which makes me, in a sense, socially...'inept'[?] I might say. I was always by myself and never really socialized with others, as much as I wanted to. So the past few years I've been trying to be social and have been successful in some ways. I still show some of that original timidness and one way is being repetetive, so early apologies.
PS: Thanks for making me go to dictionary.com and making me look up 'garrulous', which ironically itself was garrulous.

[2003041]

EBWOP: 2 things to add:
1. I won't be using the above statement as an excuse of any kind if anyone suspects me of anything.
2. My keyboard's messed up, so occasionally there might be missing E's, missing capitol letters or some missing [space bars] with my text.

[MichelSableheart]

More of an admin question: so that I don't have to keep finding this in the forum should I click 'subscribe topic' or 'bookmark topic'? x

If you want to have easy access to this topic, you should click 'bookmark topic', which places the topic in a list of favourites which can be accessed through the user control panel. 'subscribe topic' sends an email to you every time someone posts in the topic.

@Guybrush: I'll probably be breaking your rule about not interfering from time to time, especially when a question is worded accusingly. Especially later in the game, the defense of the accused isn't nearly as important as the opinions of other players. After all, the accused won't be the one deciding to lynch him.

@BAZZ: being mafia will alter the way you look at a game, and may therefore cause a subtle shift in writing style. To spot this difference, you ideally need to compare the writing style of a player in this game with his writing style in different games where you know his alignement. I have to admit though that my grasp of the english language isn't good enough to spot such subtle differences.

[Valkyrie_Hrist]

[quote="Guybrush]

I do agree Aurorus did seem like he was trying to stifle discussion, but I don't know if he meant it in that way. Can we get some clarification Aurorus?
To clarify what I said, it was in regards to Zauper commenting on Guybrush when no one else had confirmed. Just seemed odd to try and start a discussion with

no one else having yet confirmed

. Hope this clears it up for people.

From where I stand, you're accusing the guy for doing exactly the same as you did.
So I need more clarification from you.
He stated he wanted to wait for

8

people (I still don't get it).
Are you now saying you wanted to wait for

2

people? ("no one else having yet confirmed")
Valk, please explain how is his "let's wait" different from yours "let's wait".
And state your position just to be clear - is it OK to discuss during the confirmation phase or not?

[/quote]

I'm not accusing him, I was merely asking why

he

decided to post about waiting for confirmations. Then I went on to clarify my position, much like I asked him to do.
As I already explained in the quote, it seemed odd for Zauper to start a discussion with no one. I said it, because in a game I was playing on a different site, the game never got out of the confirmation stage. This is my first game on this site, so I had no idea if something similar might happen. Regarding the 'are you now saying you wanted to wait for 2 people', of course I didn't mean two people, I meant wait for a few more, maybe 4 or 5 more, to bring it up to a majority
I don't think true discussion should start in the confirmation phase, outside of questions such as, 'How many games have you played before?' type questions, to break the ice between players so people get to know each other.

[Valkyrie_Hrist]

Wow, okay, messed up the quoting on that last post. Sorry about that.