Open 233: Ninja Mafia Boogaloo - Over!

[AGar]

@AGar, how long is it reasonable to let people go in a game without contributing?

Define "without contributing."

I think Lynch-All-Lurkers is horrifically laughable, as it's null. I think players that are actively lurking and posting fluff are a good lynch as long as something less prevalent isn't occurring in terms of scumminess. I still would rather stick to voting players who have made greater tells (fencesitting, latching without any other additional thought, contradictions), than someone who is just lurking along, actively or not. Often times I can find some of them hand-in-hand with someone who's posting fluff, though.

[AGar]

@PE - I see where you're coming from with Enigma, but I'd like to see more of what he does to figure if he's scummy yet. ConfidAnon's given me plenty already.

[Zorblag]

@Paltry Excuse, the sum of tumescence's actions in the game thus far has been to promise content and not deliver. That's scummy. There's nothing redeeming to counter it with. That would make for a good vote in any ruleset.

@AGar, tumescence's participating here would be a great example of "without participating." I don't know that I'm interested in coming up with a definition that tries to cover all the loopholes but there are going to be cases when someone just isn't participating in a game that should be clear.

As far as lynch all lurkers goes, if we let people get away with lurking it gives scum incentive to lurk as it stops them from committing anything that can be taken as a tell. Town has a reason to participate regardless of the rest of the game (they should be trying to catch scum) whereas scum don't have any reason to participate other than to avoid looking scummy; if they don't even need to do that then it's in their best interest to lurk. If you're going to focus on scummy things that people have done and not take lack of participation into account then you're certainly going to find more scummy actions committed by active players than inactive players and you'll want to lynch them. Town, if active, will do things that come across as scummy sometimes.

We shouldn't need to resort to lynch all lurkers but we should actively punish lurking when it turns up. That forces scum to participate and makes them easier to catch in the long run.

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

[silverbullet999]

-Zor

Why would you have no problem with lynching me right now?

[AGar]

@Troll - Ok, I'm seeing what you're saying here. I'm keeping an eye on Tumescense, although I do believe that that post was simply to avoid a mod-kill.

[smashbro_of_the_SSS]

unvote

I must say, SmashBro is doing a FINE JOB OF LURKING. We'll get to him tomorrow.

For now,

Vote: enigma

Sorry, but for the last few days, I've had unexpectantly little time to the computer. However, I do agree with Paltry, you should have asked for a prod so that you could stop me from lurking. I know you said you would worry about me tomorrow, but why not ask for a prod on me AND vote for Enigma.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Zajnet

Has joined two major wagons, and gives little reason for each. (First one in RVS)

It's a tarp!

VOTE: Shattered Viewpoint

Shattered Viewpoint

Does not answer the RVS questions involving meta and win loss record. Is seen as suspicious, still hasn't answered the questions.
unvote when not voting gambit
scum skim, town doesn't (brought up discussion, but not a tell)

I unvoted to see if you schlubs were paying attention.

Two of you are.

The unvote gamit isn't too bad in my eyes, but I don't really like the post. Not really sure what to think about it.

Avoiding questions?? What are you hiding?

unvote

Vote: silverbullet

You accuse someone of avoiding questions after not answering those questions yourself?

Fineee I'll answer... I was looking and couldn't find the game... though I could have sworn I played with beefster before... Maybe I'm losing my mind as beef didn't show any love to me in his posts.

This -- is totally, completely scummy. YOU ARE NOT ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS FOR BEEFSTER. You are answering them FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL OF US.

Thus, you are trying to

keep information to yourself.

Scum.

Again, you just called someone scummy for the same things that you did.

Enigma

Has seemed to avoid telling many opinions.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In conclusion, (sorry if it's repetitive, the cases, but i wanted to see it all out in front of me.) Enigma seems dangerous, but not definitely scum, since we really don't know anything about him.

Good point.

So, Enigma, who do you suspect?

^^^seconded^^^

As for the other two, there is more evidence on Shattered Viewpoint, but I'm not ready to switch my vote to him. There's some kind of vibe I'm getting from him that may be townish, but his actions have seemed scummish. I'll need to think on this, but I'm satisfied with my vote on Zajnet at the moment.

[Chronopie]

Page 1

-Silver votes Agar, triple posts.
-CKD votes Zorblag, out of respect?
-Enigma votes Agar, for having a short name.
-I vote Enigma, for posting directly before me.
-Zorblag inserts his Newb game WoT, votes Agar, for being first alphabetically not to have posted.
-Beefster votes kagelord, because kage = shadow. (likes flavour text)
-Cathart votes Silver, for overactivity.
-CKD makes a fluff post.
-Sotty7 votes Zorblag, for treating it as a newb game.
-Agar fail votes Sotty7, fluff, fixes vote.
-Confid votes CKD, because curiosity kills the cat, etc. fluff reason (like everything else)
-Smashbro_SSS votes Cathart, for being slot #1.
-Zajnet votes Agar, for being a lurker (Wait, what?)
-Paltry votes Zajnet, for voting Agar for false lurker reason.
-Silver - fluff
-SC votes SV, for his name.

Result: typical RVS, Silver is a bit over active, but I view that as a null-tell.

Page 2

-Beef opens some RQS
-Coug answers
-SV answers
-SV unvotes, with out having ever voted. later claims it was to see who was paying attention.
-Zajnet answers
-Cathart answers
-I answer
-CKD answers
-Sotty answers
-Paltry answers, Votes SV, points out that SV hadn't voted in the first place.
-Beef answers his own (harmless) questions. Then states that he didn't want to put out any 'fishy' RQS.
-Smashbro_SSS answers.
-Gamma answers.
-Enigma claims to hate RQS, answers anyway.
-Sotty questions why Svunvoted, but didn't notice that Sv hadn't actually voted in the first place.
-Sv states that it was to see who was paying attention.
-Sotty votes SV
-SC votes paltry, for voting SV. (Defending?)
-Silver doesn't answer
-SV votes silver for not answering.

Result: An RQS that doesn't lead anywhere. The innocuous questions were more a time waster than anything else. not inherently scummy though. Of more interest was SV's voteless unvote, and the discussion generated from that. Possible SC-SV link. unlikely that Paltry-SV are on a team.

Page 3

-Silver complains that he'd answered in another game, so should be exempt (Yeah right)
-Agar answers the RQS, Claims infinite meta? (Slope of an exactly vertical line)
-Paltry defends SV vote, claiming irrationality is vote-worthy
-Agar claims that the RQS is a stp away from RVS (Suggesting RVS is over)
-Agar wagonhops. (RVS appears over, but no reason given for change)
-SC accepts paltry's defense, Shifts to voting Silver, claims dodginess.
-SC clarifies that Silver vote is because he didn't answer questions here.
-Silver answers questions.
-Agar explains where Silver answered previously
-Agar asks SC about the balance, votes shattered for little reason
-Sotty justifies SV vote
-Cathart insists it's still RVS (Wait, What?), votes SV
-Gamma votes SC, with a question as to SC's view on SV
-Beef answers for SC (W, W?)
-Cathart HFoSes Beef for answering, asks why
-SV re-enforces reason for voting silver, and goes on the defensive,
-Beef evades question
-Silver | Sv accuse each other, ask who each others scumpal is (singular?)
-Beef points out that it's a four scum game

Result: Paltry seems town, SV seems SV, Beef seems scummy.

FoS: Beefster

. It's unlikely that SV and silver are buddies. Cathart wants to drag us back into RVS.

Page 4

From here on in, I'll be combining several posts into single points, as the game has gotten more cohesive

-SC answers Agar's setup Question, answers Gamma's question on SV's reaction fishing, Claims Beefster is reaction fishing (Weak)
-Sotty questions SV on his reasoning and playstyle (:Goodposting:), Points out Beef's evasion, SC's weak reaction fishing reasoning. (SC answers)
-Cathart answers Beef's non-answer, doesn't act on it.
-SV ansers Sotty's questions, Claims that Silver's failure to answer the RQS points to a larger meta of withholding info (Which is scummy)
-Silver protests that he has a larger meta, being relatively newb. but doesn't deny withholding info, for a time. (note also: he was town in said games, so it can be said that withholding info is Silver's town meta)
-Enigma complains about SV's answers, withdraws complaint
-Paltry takes a pro-active stance, questioning Beefster, enigma, and SV
-Silver continues on a defensive streak
-Agar re-enforces reasons to

policy

lynch SV. (Disagreement with Playstyle is policy lynching)
-Ongoing discussion between Sc and Sotty over 'Modkill fishing' (I feel that SC is pushing it too far)
-Zajnet Wagons SV, and makes poor Star Wars reference.
-Sv backs down, stating no past evidence of Traps (barring ongoing), and can't reveal Silver's meta w/o outing main acc (Hai - I knows it btw)
-CKD votes Zajnet, for being wagony/jokey/lack of content

Result: Paltry continues to look town as does Sotty, Cathart's weak stance on Beefster is noted, Zajnet is unhelpful, SV backed down. SC-Beef team unlikely.

Page 5

-100-108 = fluff
-Confid arrives, answers RQS, votes shattered. I vote shattered for what I perceived as over-reaction and presenting false meta.
-Silver continues to defend
-Gamma announces SV is at L-2, SC then asks for a claim.
-Sv admits that he was applying someone else's meta to Silver mistakenly
-Beef shows up, mentions that the statement was jokey (the one that SC over-reacted about)
-Cathart pushes at beef again to answer why he answered for SC
-Zorblag shows back up (Since Page 1), Posts lots of questions and comments towards others. :Goodposting: Then votes Kagelord for not having posted (W, W?).

Why no suspects?

-Zajnet fails to justify his semi-RVS lurker comment.
-SV claims that Skimming is Scummy, Beefster claims to skim regardless of alignment (FTR; I tend to aswell)
-Agar answers Zorb on setup design knowledge

Page 6

-Enigma shows up, Given setup, by far most likely claim is VT, questions SV's assertion on Scum-Skimming
-Smashbro shows up, Questions SV. admits reluctance to jump on a L-2 / L-3 wagon, and votes Zajnet, for his wagony behaviour
-Beef shows up, wagons Zaj. Confid shows up, does the same thing.
-Agar comments on Confid-Wagonning, Zaj comments that the Sv wagons is falling apart due to quick build-up, and that his own is building as quickly.
-CKD votes me, for voting SV for his over-reaction / False meta, while also quoting Confid, yet doing nothing about him, and finishing up by keeping his Zajnet-wagon option open.
-Sv shows up, flails around disjointedly. Votes Smashbro, supposedly for skimming.
-CKD questions SV on skimming assertion
-CC states disbelief in SV's scum-skim assertion, claims uneasy feeling on Zajnet. Does nothing about it.
-Paltry shows up, unvotes from a dying wagon, and picks a new target in Enigma, claiming poor reasoning and prepping an SV wagon vote + gut
-SV replies to CKD's questions, with his typical sarcasm. also provides several scum games, for meta purposes. (a vengeful (goon), a large as a goon (So was I), and another large where he was GF)
-Beef and Cathart Attack Sv's Scum-Skim assertion
-Gamma calls SC scum, but doesn't place a vote.
-Agar votes Confid for being wagony
-Zorb shows up, Makes some decent points. :goodposting:
-Agar explains that he wanted SC to slip and explain too much (W, W?)

Result: Zorblag looks town, SV doesn't appear to be playing to his scum meta, Paltry slips back down the towniness ladder, CKD looks scummy.

Page 7

-SC replys to questions, claims Beef has some fallacious reasoning. After Zaj makes some poor posting, votes Zaj.
-Gamma defends Silver's not answering RQS
-CKD rages at SV's pretentious form of reply on previous page.

And my Laptops nearly dead. I'll have to finish Page 7 and do page 8 later.

[ConfidAnon]

Oh I'm sorry, you used a "reaction" (crud) and an "explanation and speed of the wagon" (also crud) to justify votes. So much better..

-_-

Not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about where I said "I'm not that great at this game, I'm trying to get better. Walls of text and deep intellectual arguments - not my forte. What I noticed in the thread was summed up in Sotty7's post. So I agreed with it. "

I understand why you'd call me scummy, but there's no need to be a douche about it.

Oh. And AGar, Confid's recent reaction to Enigma has gotten me thinking you may be right. I still feel Enigma is more likely scum though.

I don't get it.

If I don't say anything, I'm not contributing.

If I do say something, I'm suspicious.

What is there that I can do without getting voted? (Honest question.)

[AGar]

Oh I'm sorry, you used a "reaction" (crud) and an "explanation and speed of the wagon" (also crud) to justify votes. So much better..

-_-

Not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about where I said "I'm not that great at this game, I'm trying to get better. Walls of text and deep intellectual arguments - not my forte. What I noticed in the thread was summed up in Sotty7's post. So I agreed with it. "

I understand why you'd call me scummy, but there's no need to be a douche about it.

Playing the newbie card gets no sympathy points from me, as it seems that's what you're getting at.

Oh. And AGar, Confid's recent reaction to Enigma has gotten me thinking you may be right. I still feel Enigma is more likely scum though.

I don't get it.

If I don't say anything, I'm not contributing.

If I do say something, I'm suspicious.

What is there that I can do without getting voted? (Honest question.)

-_-

I'm not answering that, honest question or not.

[Sotty7]

I was thinking about putting my vote on Enigma but I don't like the Col. C's hop on the wagon in post 181. Just feels really opportunistic. Col, why didn't you vote Beef? I feel like you voted Enigma here to appease Paltry.

Ugh, I see Silver does basically the same thing as Col. C. Silver do you find Enigma scummy? Why did you basically announce your vote to only be a pressure one (voting him so he scum hunts)?

unvote

I must say, SmashBro is doing a FINE JOB OF LURKING. We'll get to him tomorrow.

For now,

Vote: enigma

Why?

= = = = =

UNVOTE: KageLord
VOTE: tumescence

Who is your biggest suspect out of the “active” players?

= = = = =

Oh. And AGar, Confid's recent reaction to Enigma has gotten me thinking you may be right. I still feel Enigma is more likely scum though.

I don't get it.

If I don't say anything, I'm not contributing.

If I do say something, I'm suspicious.

What is there that I can do without getting voted? (Honest question.)

Major AtE here and a over generalization. You aren't being found suspicious by these players simply because your posting, it is

what

you are posting. In essence, this is mafia people are going to find you suspicious. If you are town and doing what you think needs to be done to find the scum, this really shouldn't bother you. By all means defend yourself, but taking it as a personal shot which this quote seems to suggest isn't helpful and is scummy in itself.

In other news, I liked Chronopie's review of the pages. Although it did come a little close to information over analysis, but the little “results” at the bottom of each page where mostly statements I agreed with. I'm not interested in lynching him right now. Enigma, Col.C, Silver and Shattered are more likely to be scum in my eyes.

[ConfidAnon]

Major AtE here and a over generalization. You aren't being found suspicious by these players simply because your posting, it is what you are posting. In essence, this is mafia people are going to find you suspicious. If you are town and doing what you think needs to be done to find the scum, this really shouldn't bother you. By all means defend yourself, but taking it as a personal shot which this quote seems to suggest isn't helpful and is scummy in itself.

Not meaning to make it sound like I'm taking it personally, more as trying to learn.

I agree that the Chronopie post is good.

(fixed quote tag)

[curiouskarmadog]

skimmed last 1-2 pages, will catch up with time,

Chronopie posts,

lol, I look scummy, now? wonder if that has ANYTHING to do with calling you out.

funny you still havent answered my questions yet, instead you want to assert I am scummy..

yep, my vote is in the right place.

[curiouskarmadog]

also just caught this question, there might be other, but this caught the eye

@CKD: Is this a policy lynch of Chronopie, or is there some underlying meta of lurking-Chrono = scum-Chrono?

as far as I know I have never played with Chrono before, please see my vote where I vote him...that is the intial reason, the lurking thing just went with it....I have a good gut read on people....spidey sense is saying there is scum there.

[AGar]

I have a good gut read on people....spidey sense is saying there is scum there.

Links to games where this is true?

I don't trust "gut reads" unless someone has proof that they tend to have a good gut for reading people.

[StrangerCoug]

-SC

, I expect him to know better than to think he should be ignoring questions most of the time.

Where else have I been ignoring questions?

That was pretty much it here. I was talking in a more general sense.

[Papa Zito]

Someone comes up with a liferaft. Naturally, a fight breaks out among the survivors to see who gets to ride in it. Sixteen (16) manage to squeeze onto the raft, while the other two (2) are forced to hang onto the floating body of the pilot. Yuck.

All this also proves to be a great distraction from the dorsal fin that's started circling the group.

Sixth Votecount of Day 1

1. Col.Cathart (0):
2. KageLord (0):
3. Chronopie (1): curiouskarmadog
4. ConfidAnon (1): AGar
5. Gammagooey (0):
6. AGar (1): Enigma
7. Zajnet (4): smashbro_of_the_SSS, Beefster, ConfidAnon, StrangerCoug
8. Zorblag (0):
9. tumescence (1): Zorblag
10. Enigma (5): PaltryExcuse, Gammagooey, Col.Cathart, silverbullet999, Shattered Viewpoint
11. StrangerCoug (0):
12. smashbro_of_the_SSS (0):
13. Beefster (0):
14. Shattered Viewpoint (3): Sotty7, Zajnet, Chronopie
15. Sotty7 (0):
16. PaltryExcuse (0):
17. curiouskarmadog (0):
18. silverbullet999 (0):

Players not voting: KageLord, tumescence

With 18 players alive, it takes 10 votes to lynch.
The current wagon leader is

Enigma

at L-5.
Deadline: August 4th @ 11:59PM CST

[Beefster]

I did a quick ISO over Zajnet. He has posted nothing but fluff and opportunistic votes.

I see the point on Enigma- as he posts nothing but questions at other people. No thought progression or suspicion.

Zorblag is starting to look scummy. He seems to be a little too gung-ho about lynch all lurkers and isn't focusing much on real scumhunting. He's doing some of the same things that Enigma is doing as well. I also find it very strange how he posted a quote regarding the newbie setup and advice for it. I'm not sure what he was trying to accomplish.

I skimmed over SV again and realized that he is pretty scummy (or at least anti-town). His posts consist mostly of fluff and the "scum skim" points.

[silverbullet999]

I think someone asked me why I threw my vote on Enigma for pressure or something of the sort?

I like pressure being put on people as it tends to reveal them more or less and enigma needs to contribute a bit more...

(If i missed any other questions feel free to remind me, I'm tired at the moment)

[Sotty7]

That someone was me, is it so hard to read the thread and remember these things?

I'm all for putting pressure on people, but announcing that the vote is nothing more than a pressure vote, not only takes

away

the pressure by cluing in the player on your intentions. But is also is a way of absolving you of any real responsibility for this wagon. You seemed to have abandoned your top suspect to pressure a lurker who hasn't posted since the wagon formed. I fail to see how this is helpful in rooting out scum.

[silverbullet999]

That someone was me, is it so hard to read the thread and remember these things?

I forgot where it was and I've been posting walls in my other games lately... which I never do, and I'm tired... SUE ME.

You seemed to have abandoned your top suspect to pressure a lurker who hasn't posted since the wagon formed. I fail to see how this is helpful in rooting out scum.

Err a vote regardless of intention still brings them closer to a lynch. It's my intention to not see a lynch occur til deadline is pretty close... so does that mean my vote bringing someone to L-1 doesn't matter? I haven't abandoned shattered, I still think he's scum but the wagon has moved to Enigma, I don't wanna tunnel vision myself and I'd like to hear from Enigma thus my vote.

But is also is a way of absolving you of any real responsibility for this wagon.

Not sure what you mean by this... Let's say I accidentally hammer someone, my post saying to add pressure I'll be voting you too and I throw my vote... it being the hammer. Does me saying that it's accidental absolve me of hammering him? I think not...

[Col.Cathart]

-Cathart insists it's still RVS (Wait, What?), votes SV

(...)

Cathart wants to drag us back into RVS.

'Wait, What?' is my line here. I guess you are referring to my post 65, in which case this is completely not true. That was obvious comment about Beefster's questions which WERE as RVS as it can get. Me stating that fact about something that happened several posts ago =/= insisting it's still RVS or dragging us back into RVS. SV vote was dead serious. It would be awesome if you could explain in any way your line of thinking here.

[curiouskarmadog]

I have a good gut read on people....spidey sense is saying there is scum there.

Links to games where this is true?

I don't trust "gut reads" unless someone has proof that they tend to have a good gut for reading people.

well if you really want to technically about it, I am right 57% of the time (part of a correct lynch or being a vig). check out my wiki, top two most recently completed games, i felt my gut was right on, if I have the time, I have a new completed game (I need to add) that just wrapped up (in which I lost) that I didnt follow my gut.

but dont take my word for it, all my games I have played are on there to include scum ones.

now, that I have provided that, I am interested to hear what you have learned.

also, any vote on Day 1 is a gut vote, so I am interested in also hearing how your vote is any different than mine.

hoping to be able to update this game by tonight or tomorrow.

[tumescence]

Hey guys, I've read up to page 5, but thought I'd answer the RVS questions:

1. Pepsi or Coke?
2. Favorite Setup?
3. How would you describe your meta?
4. Win/loss record?
5. Maximum number of games you'll play in at one time?

1. Hate both.
2. None.
3. Lazy. Better as mafia than town, because it's easier for me to fake seemingly genuine scumhunting than do genuine scumhunting. Moreover, much of my scumhunting is sadly intuitive, so I have difficulty convincing others. Hopefully that'll improve.
4. Won 1 game as mafia, 1 game as town.
5. Not really set a limit. Whatever catches my interest.

[AGar]

@CKD - I see your gut, it's ok. I can go with that.

I disagree that Day 1 is completely a gut vote, but that's playstyle differences I guess. I tend to stray from my gut on D1, I'd rather push at players for what I find to be common tells that I've seen (think I've outlined this in the thread already), and then I rely on gut later on in the game.

Sotty, your 218 strikes me as ironic. In your 209, you quote a post from Troll and ask who his biggest suspect of the active players is. In the same post you quoted, no more than two lines down, Troll outlines a list of people he'd be happy with lynching (generally means suspecting that person), one of whom has maintained a decent activity level throughout the game.

EBWONinjaPreview:

So, you've had some 56 hours to read 10? pages since you last posted, and that's all you've got...

[Sotty7]

Silver, would rather get closer to a lynch or vote and pressure the scummiest player in your eyes? Keep in mind we have about a week left in the deadline.

Col. C

I had a question for you in 209.

Sotty, your 218 strikes me as ironic. In your 209, you quote a post from Troll and ask who his biggest suspect of the active players is. In the same post you quoted, no more than two lines down, Troll outlines a list of people he'd be happy with lynching (generally means suspecting that person), one of whom has maintained a decent activity level throughout the game.

Troll listed Chronopie, Enigma, silverbullet999, tumescence, Zajnet, all of who I would list as lurkers. Silver has been posting but not a lot of content at all. I know a little of Troll's early game is about pushing the lurkers regardless of alignment, I just want him to commit a clear opinion on people that are posting, because lynch all lurkers is a good way to hide directly in thread. I suppose a better question would have been, why Silver?

Tumescence, those questions don't even matter. Catch up with the game and post something useful.