Mafia 1013 - Prozacs Basic Theme - Game has ENDED

[Fishythefish]

vote: Jack

for being last to confirm. He wanted to carry on chatting with his scumbuddies.

[Fishythefish]

@Blackberry - neither. They are more likely to be town.

@mod:

I've just seen that we are expected to post every 48 hours. I will generally post much more than that, but at weekends my activity is sporadic at the moment. I try to get on at least once, but it's possible I go 48 hours without any access. Is this acceptable?

[Fishythefish]

unvote, vote: Blackberry

I agree with Raivann about the attitude of his first post. Adding to this is the way he spends quite a bit of it discussing his own playstyle. Blackberry seems to be thinking a lot about how he is seen by others, and that makes him likely scum.

[Fishythefish]

Yes. I am basing my vote on one post. I think that post is attempting to get people to like Blackberry, and that the focus on BB's playstyle in the first paragraph shows he is focused on his own image. Of course that can be a personality thing, but I think it's a bit more likely to come from scum than town - as scum people spend more time worrying about how they are perceived. I think it's more likely to be right than voting on a total nulltell.

[Fishythefish]

@BB: speaking for myself, when I am town it matters to me how I look. When I am scum I

obsess

about it. I believe this is broadly true for the population as a whole. I totally agree that a great town strategy is to be very open about your thoughts on the game, because when I achieve that is easily when I play my best mafia. But that still brings us back to the fact that your were thinking about your own image.

@llama: what's wrong with my vote, exactly? I don't understand your explanations thus far. Can you also please explain exactly what the connection between Raivann and me is - all I see is that we agree on something.

FoS: Llama

Right now I don't feel your attitude towards me adds up. Also, your stance on me seemed to become less certain between posts 35 and 48, and yet you voted for me in the latter - after your position had received support from xvart.

@flameaxe: I think that
1) People who use smilies to excess are more likely to be trying to be liked by the town.
2) People who are trying to be liked by the town are more likely to be thinking about how they are viewed.
3) People who are thinking about how they are viewed are more likely to be scum.
When I said BB was "likely scum", I meant that he was more likely scum than average. Obviously, it's too early in the game to be very sure.

[Fishythefish]

Fishy, I'd hardly consider thinking about how you are viewed as scummy. Whether you're town, scum or whatever, you want to be seen as town. That's common to all roles, is it not? What makes it scummy in the first place?

Unvote

for now. Expect a serious vote shortly.

I've already answered this. I believe that scum think about how they are viewed

more

than town. This is based on my personal experience, and I think it's fairly sensible - as scum, your own life is much more important than being right about things, so the emphasis in your thought process is on "how will this look?" rather than "is this true?".

[Fishythefish]

Well. That was how I was intending the phrase "likely scum". I think it would be kind of absurd for it to have the other meaning - there is simply no motivation for a player of any faction to make a statement with such unjustified certainty that early in the game. I also think it's pretty clear from my post 36 (shortly after the vote) that this was my meaning - I said BB's post was "a bit more likely to come from scum than town" and that it was "more likely to be right than a total nulltell". I don't think those phrases jive at all well with what you think I was saying.

I'm not saying the actual smilies themselves would be a concious scum tactic. Rather, worrying about how people see you would lead to an ingratiating post style, as you tried to make people like you.

I don't think my argument was wrong. If it's not obvious, I don't feel what I pointed out is a mega-strong scumtell, but I do think it is a scumtell. And in the RVS, I'll vote on anything that I think makes someone more likely to be scum. I really don't understand why people have such big problems with this vote.

[Fishythefish]

@llama: and my other questions? To repeat:
- Why, exactly, am I scum? What is it that was stupid about my vote, and why was that stupidity (or anything else about it) scummy?
- What is the link between me and Raivann, and why did you bring it up?
- If your stance didn't change between those posts, why did you only vote in the second one?
I feel you are rather strawmanning my argument on BB by condensing it to "scum use smilies more than town". While I suppose that is a consequence of it, it makes the argument sound more silly than it is.

@xvart: when posting early in the game, I endeavour not to random vote. That means I'm looking for any tell of any magnitude to vote on. If the result sometimes looks "somewhat concocted", that's no great surprise to me. By the way, what do you mean when you call my vote "opportunistic", in the context of it being the second vote on a wagon, with the first being random?

[Fishythefish]

No. You are strawmanning my argument. My full argument goes:
- BB's jokey style in his first post, including smilies, make me think he is trying to be liked.
- This, and the fact that he talks about his playstyle (which is an argument you have made no reference to), make me think he is thinking about his own image.
- This makes me think he's scum.
I think it's clear that that is not equivalent to "smilies are scummy". I don't believed that you actually went back and looked at my posts when I challenged you on that. And since your supposedly basing your vote off my posts, I find that pretty suspect.

unvote, vote: llama

[Fishythefish]

Antiprod post.

Real post coming within an hour.

[Fishythefish]

@llama: in 100, you said "did anyone else see this?", and later clarified that you meant a change in my argument. I think you must have misunderstood one of my posts; can you explain this in more detail please?

To be clear, this is what makes me think you are scum:
- I said (69) that you were strawmanning my argument by condensing it to "scum use smilies more than town".
- You said (73) that that was what my argument was when you stripped away the crap.
- In 100, you admit that there was another part to my argument, that you agree with.
Now, I don't think 73 could have come from a player who had actually bothered to read over my arguments again when I accused you of strawmanning me. When accused of a strawman as town, I think the natural reaction is to read the argument you are supposed to be strawmanning. Since you didn't do that, I think you are scum. Here's your refutation of this in 100:

I don't believed that you actually went back and looked at my posts when I challenged you on that. And since your supposedly basing your vote off my posts, I find that pretty suspect.

I find it hard to believe that you really don't think I read your post at all... Especially when I quoted it to you. You = Liar. Liars = scum. Therefore, you = scum.

Oh wait, that was someone else who said that, so it doesn't have that ironic effect.


Jokey style =/= trying to be liked by town. Jokey style = personality. End of story.

It's simply not relevant. I'm not saying you didn't read 69; I'm saying you didn't bother to go back and read what I said you were strawmanning. It's also actually not at all relevant here whether my "jokey style = trying to be liked" theory holds water. So, here's my question: when posting 73 in reply to 69, did you go back and reread my posts about BB? If not, why not?

@xvart:

So... do you think that trying to be liked is not a strong scumtell? Which is scummier: concocting cases or trying to be liked? And maybe opportunistic wasn't the right word, but I see your vote as trying to initiate a wagon for something that isn't there. I meant that there was a opportunity to make someone scummy available (even with weak justification) and you jumped on it. What has been the benefit to creating weak cases to avoid random voting in the past? How has this helped the town in your other games?

I think that trying to be liked is a weak scumtell.
I don't really know what you mean by "concocting cases". I think it's far too broad a phrase for me to answer that question meaningfully. IMO, making a weak case in the RVS isn't scummy at all; making a case based on a nulltell in order to vote on a big bandwagon is far scummier than trying to be liked.
Creating weak cases (but still based on scumtells of some magnitude) to avoid the RVS is far better at provoking discussion and reaction than the RVS in my experience. I've done this a lot in my games (probably more the more recently you look), and I think it makes the start of the game go faster and more productively. I don't have specific cases up my sleeve for how it's affected the rest of the day or game; I suggest you look into my history if you want to. I can't see why it would be better to cast a random vote than a not-quite-random vote.

[Fishythefish]

I never accused you of being "too townie".

[Fishythefish]

When you say Raivann and I "took the bait", does that imply a deliberate trap?

[Fishythefish]

@llama: there is no contradiction between me thinking that openness is townie and that discussing your own playstyle is scummy. I think scum tend to think about their playstyle more, and so discuss it more. It's about

what

they are being open about. To give an example of why there is no contradiction, scumslips are in a way being open about your thoughts. They are not townie.

Anyway, my argument on BB is irrelevant to why I think you are scum. I'm not going to bother arguing with you about it any further; it doesn't feature significantly in my read on BB any more. Why I think you are scum is that you strawmanned that argument - after I had pointed out the same strawman - without bothering to reread my argument. Regardless of the validity of that argument, that is not a townie action.

Why is it you no longer think I'm scum? You had some pretty strong opinions on that score - including calling me a liar and saying I had completely contradicted myself - and I haven't said anything that's seemed to convince you otherwise. You unvoted me, and voted Jack for being "annoying, evasive and getting pissed off". Of those, only "evasive" seems likely to be a scumtell (though in my experience a poor one applied to Jack). Excusing your vote by saying you aren't losing anything because we're not close to lynching does not sit well with me - you are undermining your own read and vote.

[Fishythefish]

@mallow: please expand on why you think people are scummy. Particularly Jack, since that's your strongest read, but also myself, MK, and SC.

[Fishythefish]

So, rereading mallow I'm slightly confused. Did we establish what was meant by this post:

Fine. Noteworthy. You happy?

After that statement, my vote shall remain.

Being flippant is not a tell. Sorry.

I never said it was a tell. You just did. I WILL say that that just makes me suspect you more and I think you just slipped.

I totally can't see any meaning of this sequence that explains this last post from mallow, as town or scum.

There's something else I think is relevant in relation to mallow, but it depends rather on the answer to that so I might wait to bring it up.

[Fishythefish]

I'm more interested in the follow up post in which mallow, being accused of lying, says that lying isn't always scummy. That seems to me be to an attempt to win an argument, rather than explain his actions.

[Fishythefish]

llama's 259 is goodposting (except the bit where I'm 2nd scum). I don't like Anon's 246 - I don't like llama's play in nearly the same period that Anon doesn't, but his objections really don't strike a chord with me. I don't see how you could find it scummy that llama doesn't agree about smilies, I don't think it's at all fair to call llama "sheeping" and "trying to get a vocal personality on his side" for criticising an attack on BB. The last point really doesn't feel like he's read the highly relevant argument between llama and me; llama wasn't taking issue with the bit of the logic he agreed with.

FoS: Anon

[Fishythefish]

I think llama's scum, but I think anon's reasons for attacking him are scummy. What's wrong with that?

I don't have much of a read of mallow, and I'm not going to vote for him unless something changes. I think the sequence:
mallow: something.
someone else: you're lying. Liars are scum.
mallow: liars aren't always scum.
is rather scummy.

[Fishythefish]

llama's 259 is goodposting (except the bit where I'm 2nd scum). I don't like Anon's 246 - I don't like llama's play in nearly the same period that Anon doesn't, but his objections really don't strike a chord with me. I don't see how you could find it scummy that llama doesn't agree about smilies, I don't think it's at all fair to call llama "sheeping" and "trying to get a vocal personality on his side" for criticising an attack on BB. The last point really doesn't feel like he's read the highly relevant argument between llama and me; llama wasn't taking issue with the bit of the logic he agreed with.

FoS: Anon

This is a terrible post. I dont remember talking about simlies and what you think its fair or not doesnt hold weight in my scumhunting techniques. The subtle defense of an active and vocal player for reasons you dont even believe in is not a natural reaction coming from a townie entity.

Anyways, the core of this post is to fos me because even if you dont like llama, you dont like the way Im attacking him. Im having trouble understanding how this is natural reasoning coming from a townie perspective, its like you dont want to convince people that you think llama is scum and you prefer spreading the suspicion for wtv reason.

discuss.

llama heavily criticised the stances of Raivann and myself on BB. You are saying that criticism was really bad, and unlikely to come from town. I'm saying that simply isn't true - whatever anyone's personal opinion, it's obvious why someone would think that an argument which says smilies are scummy looks like a bit silly.

To put it another way; I don't think it's plausible for you to think that llama's defence of BB is sheeping or trying to get BB on his side. You haven't remotely shown that llama didn't believe his defence, or and his defence simply wasn't "subtle".

You are saying that just because I think llama's scummy, I should think everyone on his wagon is right about everything they say on him? Just no. I think your attacks on llama are scummy, and I think he's scummy. You're probably not

both

scum (although it could be multiscum, I suppose), but why on earth should that stop me attacking both of you to find out which? You're argument only works if my position is supposed to be "llama is scum. llama must die. Lynch llama. No other options." It's a bad attempt to get me to stop attacking you, egged on by Jack.

I would like Flameaxe to comment on that playstyle change. I think I have played with him before (?) - in a spare moment I'll have a look in my meta of him.

[Fishythefish]

@Flameaxe: I was thinking of something more recent than 2008, so I'm guessing it's just me remembering wrong.

[Fishythefish]

*Antiprod/promise of content within 12 hours*

[Fishythefish]

Of the people who seem to be getting some attention:
- I see little reason to think mallow, Jack or Flameaxe is scum.
- I don't like Anon's cases. The one on llama feels like he hasn't really read and thought about the llama/me/BB/etc. interaction hard, and the one on Flameaxe is based on very old meta, and Flame not making gut reads yet in this game. These are scumtells of a kind - both seem marginally more likely from scum - but in both cases there are perfectly good protown explanation for Flame's actions, and the point seem nearly null. They're just not the kind of things I can see someone basing a read off.
- I didn't like llama's play near the start, and have no real read on his recent posts.
- BB: I'm a bit sceptical about his claim to have been trying to look vulnerable by talking about an unusual playstyle. But generally my gut says he's town; his posts read like he believes what he's saying.

[Fishythefish]

@Jack: all those quotes are one point on mallow. And yeah, there is one thing that makes me think he's scummy, and nothing that makes me think you or Flame are scum. But describing my reads on all of you as "little reason to think they're scum" doesn't mean my reads are identical - it just means I don't see enough evidence to make me want to consider those lynches. I don't really see what you find scummy here.

Without looking at the actual sequence of events (I'm not sure of the status of his wagon when I made my comment, or when I said I wouldn't be voting him based on it), your mallow-me link seems reasonable. I'll think about it harder if and when mallow flips scum.

Why do you find mallow's recent posts scummy?

@Raiv: why did you vote for Flameaxe, and what made you change your mind?

[Fishythefish]

Why do you think his reads are off intentionally? Why does disagreeing with you make him scum? Which of his posts defending llama or BB make you think he's scum?

[Fishythefish]

I'm not really believing Raivann's read on Flameaxe. I don't feel it's a natural reaction to someone criticising your reads to call them scummy for defending those players and disagreeing with you. Similarly, I seriously dislike the OMGUS of calling Budja scum simply for being the third vote on his wagon. He seems far more concerned with undermining people who attack him than explaining his votes, defending himself or determining people's alignments.

unvote, vote: Raivann

[Fishythefish]

@Scoug: I answered Jack's 358.

@Raivann: you posted without answering my questions. And when you

did

answer them, you address one small and irrelevant factual inaccuracy (me saying you called Budja scum, rather than called something he did scummy). Trying to win an argument, rather than actually think about my case or persuade me you are town.

I simply don't believe that Raivann's reactions to being voted - always thinking the attacker is scum and dismissing the attack for poor reasons (the above/third vote) are townie ones. He's interested in discrediting his attackers, not defend himself or persuade them he's town.

[Fishythefish]

While OMGUS is perfectly normal, I don't think this level of it is something you often see from townies. Raivann feels like scum who thinks he can get people to stop voting him by attacking them whenever they do.

Of course, that point is undermined somewhat by the fact that you very rarely see play like this from scum either.

Two things give me pause for thought. The speed of the wagon, and to a lesser extent the VT claim. Neither of these are typical of scum wagons.

Basically, on a review I don't know what to think. It's very easy to get a scumread on Raivann, but I'm not sure it's actually right.

unvote, vote: llama

[Fishythefish]

@BB: I don't see play like this from town. Do you see play like this from scum?

Claiming a VT never saves people from lynches. Sure, the flipside is that claimed VTs aren't as bad lynches even if they are town, but it's still definitely a claim you get more from town than scum.

Let me explain what I mean about my scumread on Raivann. It's very easy to get a

that makes no sense as town

read on him. But his play makes no sense from scum either. It's a question of which it makes less sense as, and the more I think about that the less obvious it is.

[Fishythefish]

Defending themselves. Trying to persuade people they are town. Attacking people for unrelated reasons. Trying to latch onto other bandwagons. Claiming a power role. Not continuing to do exactly what you are being attacked for.

[Fishythefish]

Why would scum claim a power role per se, Fishythefish? I've done the tactic a lot myself, but don't you think there are times claiming VT is safer (such a situation was brought up in SWN II)?

They would claim PR because they don't like getting lynched. There are certainly situation where a VT claim is better, but they are relatively rare and there's no reason to suppose this is one of them. That's only a minor reason for my change of vote though - it's mostly because this wagon doesn't feel right, and I realised I just don't have a coherent picture of scumRaivann.

@llama: I think it's pretty clear that Raivann's been in danger since before I voted him, so moving away because he's in danger makes little sense. I thought harder about Raivann, and realised that I hadn't seen anything which actually made me think "yeah, scum would do that". What is it in FA's ppba, or elsewhere, that you think fits with Raivann being scum?

My move back to you is for the same reasons I was voting you before (largely you're early game play). I still think you're scum.

The wagon certainly was fast. He went from 1 vote to L-1 in 2 days.

[Fishythefish]

Fishythefish: Ok, Im probably biased by OMGUS but I dont like Fishy. The Raivann vote and unvote seems like an ellegant backtrack for a reason that doesnt add up. Im neutral about Raivann (see below for more details) but claiming vanilla is not the towntell Fishy is trying to paint. Im not sure if I buy the " I thought harder about Raivann, and realised that I hadn't seen anything which actually made me think "yeah, scum would do that"." And I still mantain that is really unnatural for a player to spread the suspicion between his top suspect and one of his heavy attackers but guess this could be me.

Clearly, I've backtracked on Raivann, although I'm not sure what was 'elegant' about it. I've changed my mind about him. Claiming vanilla isn't a major reason for my change, but I think it is certainly a towntell - scum claim vanilla far less than the average proportion of vanillas in a game, in my experience. Is there anything you'd like me to explain further about my stance, if you don't buy it? I think I've been fairly clear - I realised that I was voting someone because I they didn't look like a town player, but that that's pretty null if they don't look like scum either.

The last point I've talked about before - it amounts to saying that if I'm attacking someone, I have to agree with what anyone says about them, which is just silly.

[Fishythefish]

At this stage, it's clear who we are lynching. Raivann is certainly likely enough to be scum that his lynch is better than none.

unvote, vote: Raivann

[Fishythefish]

I've just noticed that we can get a lynch at deadline with only 4 votes (half of full lynch), so there is no urgency to hammer. This means that it's sensible to vote for either Raivann or BB at this stage.

I think I'm going to

unvote, vote: Blackberry

I don't have a scumread on Raivann any more. I honestly don't have the time or the energy to properly assess BB tonight (I haven't been following the case on him as closely as I should have), but a skim of xvart and BB makes me feel relatively happy with this vote. It's obviously not ideal to be casting a fairly uninformed vote this near deadline, but I've read enough that I think he's more likely to flip scum than Raivann.

[Fishythefish]

If my maths is right, Raivann now has 5 votes to BBs 4. At deadline, 4 votes are needed to lynch; if it's a tie above 4 whoever got there first will be lynched.

[Fishythefish]

@llama: in 475 I thought Raivann was the only possible lynch, and to have my vote elsewhere was to risk a mislynch. My read didn't change between 475 and 489, I just realised that we don't need majority at deadline.

@BB: I've explained my change of heart on Raivann. Basically, I realised I was attacking him for things that scum have no more motive to do than town. In particular, I'm not convinced that rampant OMGUS or blatant lack of effort are things scum have any more reason than town to do.

Anyway, it seems deadline has passed, so we'll see. Here's hoping I'm wrong

[Fishythefish]

Proper post coming in 12 hours or so.

[Fishythefish]

@mallow: why do you think BB is scum?

Some of SC's posts late yesterday feel a bit off to me. It's mostly gut, but I'll try to explain:

You're getting worse and worse. You have horrendous cases on Fishythefish (not allowing you a chance to answer him), Blackberry (voting you for calling llamaeatataco his scumbuddy), and Flameaxe (making walls of text and filling them with buzzwords). I do not buy any of those three as legitimate,

and I'm pretty sure there aren't that many here that do either.

The bolded is an appeal to the majority to justify his read.

Why would scum claim a power role per se, Fishythefish? I've done the tactic a lot myself, but don't you think there are times claiming VT is safer (such a situation was brought up in SWN II)?

This doesn't quite feel right. The situation he cites is really irrelevant, and I just get a feel of him trying to convince me without committing too much to anything.

There are also a couple of times before he actually votes Raivann that SC gives suspicions on him. SC's play late yesterday seems quite careful and deliberate.

Other bits and pieces I don't like in SC's play; he says he likes Jack's 358 on me, and might switch when I'd responded. I'd already responded, and he never mentions it again; why not?

While attacking mallow, he criticises the latter's setup speculation, and then proceeds to speculate himself; more importantly, there's just nothing scummy about mallow's speculation. I never saw coherent reasoning about the flippancy thing that explained why mallow would have done what he did as scum, and I really don't feel that mallow looks scummy in that sequence.

vote: StrangerCoug

[Fishythefish]

The situation on SWN II was irrelevant - that's what I was talking about. I don't see why you would mention there. As for not attacking you before, I wasn't really thinking about you. I don't have a problem with thinking before posting- but from your posts I feel like you are trying to get away with voting for Raivann, rather actually thinking he's scum.

Your comment about 358 sits badly because when you made it I'd

already

responded to Jack. If you were reading his points and me and thinking about the situation, it would be very odd to miss that.

mallow's setup speculation:

I'm not ready to accept this claim as true. Why are you outing yourself so early, and why are you suggesting that mallowgeno is a miller?

Claiming cop is only bad if there is a roleblocker. Mafia may have a day roleblocker (weird) but we probably have a doc. Even if we don't, mafia may be too scared to try to kill a cop until the doc has been killed.

It's not necessarily right or productive, but what is scummy about this? You just said "setup speculation! scummy!" - which is more like what can you throw at mallow than genuinely thinking he's scummy.

re: mallow's flippancy. Why do you think he would do what he did as scum?

[Fishythefish]

@SC: yes, I know what SWN II was supposed to be an example of. But that's a rare and specific situation, and if you don't know that something like that applies you would always assume it doesn't. So using that as an argument for anything is an unnatural way to go about things.

I don't see that saying "there might be a doctor" is going to help the scum, regardless of how likely it is. Even if you think it will send the scum looking for doctors, there's no reason that scum would want to do that (they'd just look for doctors without announcing it). This is pretty weak justification for finding mallow's setup speculation scummy, and makes me think I was right that you were just looking for some mud to sling at mallow.

I struggle to see why mallow would play as he did on the flippancy from any perspective. I think that lying is a scumtell; but when I just don't understand what a player was thinking (as here), my instinct is that it's a nulltell. I don't think the image of mallowscum thinking that his play was a good way to get a mislynch or defend himself rings true.

[Fishythefish]

Obviously, not knowing Jack is dead is something that's eminently fakeable from scum. But from my experience, scum never actually fake anything like that. I think mallow voting Jack is a good indicator that he didn't kill him.

I was nearly sure that Jack's claim was a lie. In fact, I was kind of surprised that anyone thought differently.

[Fishythefish]

Hi all,
I'm afraid I'm going to have to request replacement from this game. I've been struggling to motivate myself, and I have a V/LA coming up. I think that between those factors, the game would do much better with someone else in this slot. I'm very sorry for the disruption this will cause.
Fishy

[Fishythefish]

Thanks to both the mod and Confucius for making my replacement go very well. Sorry about that!

One comment on the ruleset: a voting rule that requires people to vote very quickly (as today) isn't the point of the game for me. I don't think mafia should ever turn into a game of "who can coordinate being online best?".