OK, sorry for not being around until now. I’ll try to make up with an analysis of the game to date.
*Warning: Literary dreadnought follows*
The first thing of any note whatsoever happens in Fiasco’s first post, when he says “assuming it was random” referring to a vote on him. The next thing is Fiasco speculating on the setup, often considered a scum tell, but in this case not really since he’s basically speculating the game is of a very standard setup.
LML and the Don point out that talking about this is not very helpful and could be considered a scum tell, which Fiasco questions. Norinel points out part of the reason (that it could give scum information) and Dragyn points out the other main reason (it allows the scum to spread false beliefs which could later be erroneously considered fact). However, Dragyn and Viking Fan point out that there’s not really much to talk about on day one, and that discussing the setup – as long as it’s done in the knowledge that opinion and fact are not equivalent – is often a helpful place to start.
LML brings up the issue of the odd phraseology in Fiasco’s first post. Dragyn agrees that something’s dodgy, but for a completely different (and invalid) reason. Fiasco points out that there are a number of reasons which could apply, then uses a quick WIFOM defence against it being a slip. He then attacks Dragyn (not much, but still does) for a relatively minor thing which, to be fair, Dragyn should have double checked. LML points out that if there was a reason to vote Fiasco, he would have mentioned it, and Viking joins in the growing Fiasco wagon based on the evidence to date.
Fiasco responds in a somewhat emotive fashion, attacking the fact of being voted over the reasons for being voted – a surprisingly common tell of guilt. He then starts making a point of how the scum are close to winning, despite being in a relatively common day one situation. He also seems to have a need to talk about every little point, which again strikes me as suspicious.
KingPin votes Jaguar for lurking, but points out Fiasco’s defensiveness. Norinel points out that there are quite a lot of things that could prompt discussion day 1, and LML points out that actually this day 1 has been surprisingly helpful. Dragyn maintains his vote on Fiasco, based on Fiasco’s reactions to the wagon, and LML points out that lurkervoting is often something scum do when trying to look pro-town. Fiasco then makes a quick double-post explaining the wording of the first post, which I find interesting based on the discussion that’s taken place since.
Jaguar makes her first post, pointing out that Fiasco’s actions do seem a little… odd, noting especially the sheer volume of Fiasco’s posts. Fiasco responds by saying this is his normal style, and that he often makes a lot of small posts. I make my first post, attacking Fiasco on the same grounds as many other people, as well as pointing out the logical fallacy of grouping all anti-town players together. Fiasco makes a rather unusual WIFOM argument saying he can safely make defensive posts without it being a scum tell because everyone knows it’s a scum tell (what?) and proceeds to attack primarily my post, but also defends his style by pointing out that not the volume but the ratio of scum tells is what’s important, seemingly not realising that the volume of posts IS one of the main scum tells he’s been giving itself.
Norinel points out that town sometimes makes a large flurry of posts when under attack, saying basically that a large volume is not in and of itself a reliable tell. KingPin then retains his lurker-vote policy, shifting his vote to Passdog for a lack or posting, which LML reminds him is often a relatively scummy activity, enforcing the point with an FoS. Dragyn then makes a seemingly jokey FOS, in itself an interesting move at this point in the game, given we already had plenty to talk about. VikingFan puts his support on the lurkerhunt. Jaguar points out the potential flaws in this lurkerhunt philosophy.
Fiasco points out that everyone who’d posted was finding him suspicious. He also says he’d never believed there was four scum in one group, calling it a “misunderstanding” on my part. However, my comments regarding that were due to the way he’d phrased his reasoning and based his logic on the implicit assumption all scum were working together. He then accuses LML of trying to spread misinformation! He also attacks LML for making an observation on a possible scum tell (one which I personally agree with LML regarding)
Jaguar points out how Don Gaetano seems to be deliberately not posting, using this fact to vote for him, but doesn’t mention the Fiasco situation at all. Fiasco instantly agrees with Jaguar’s point. LML points out how Fiasco’s wagon has stalled, but then goes on to say that he’s finding Fiasco less and less suspicious. Kingpin agrees about the stalling and points out how newbies are often over-defensive – however, I’ve found that only really is the case in a player’s first game or in their first one or two as scum. I consider it a larger scum tell in newbies. Jaguar again mentions how Fiasco’s flurry is not necessarily a scum tell.
Don makes a quick “I’m not lurking, honest” style post, much like the ones I made a couple of days ago, to show he is still reading the game but simply doesn’t have time for a reasoned response. Vikingfan requests a modprod for Passdog, and Don makes another post basically saying “nothing’s changed”. Jaguar then questions Don’s reasoning for maintaining the vote on me, and calls him out on his apparent inactivity in games which he has actually contributed to. Don accuses Jaguar of misrepresenting him (I personally feel Jag’s in the right here, though)
Fiasco makes a point of explaining how his actions are consciously thought over – interesting. He then makes one more defense of his first post and his subsequent actions, before going on to make some comments about other players. He also mentions how he considers votes against him as scum tells, which I particularly noted as interesting. Jaguar then maintains her discussion with Don about his actions and perceived lurking. Fiasco points out that Don maintaining his vote for no good reason might actually be simply because, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it – there was no great reason to move his vote.
LML points out that he has a knack for finding scum tells in the very early game, and also explains how Fiasco’s later actions corroborate the evidence. He also points out how Fiasco has maintained an attack on him based on something he corrected himself on a significant amount of time ago, and elaborates his reasons for attacking lurkerhunts. Fiasco explains his reaction to the early post, and points out why he was maintaining the attack despite LML’s self-correction.
Norinel points out LML’s change in attitude from humility to seeming arrogance, and says he agrees that Fiasco’s first post and the whole debacle surrounding it was due to a misunderstanding rather than anything else. He also notes Jag’s attention on Don overshadowing her attention to anyone else.
Dragyn decides to attack me based on my willingness to put a vote on yet not immediately putting one on, and Don immediately jumps on this as justification for him maintaining his post. Dragyn also mentions that scum would be foolish at best to trade two scum for a townie, using this as rationale for why scum wouldn’t just speedlynch a townie.
Passdog arrives at last and weighs his opinion in of Fiasco, voting him and maintaining him at three votes after Dragyn’s recent unvote. LML steps in to say that he feels I am a bad lynch at the time, and calls Passdog out on a potential misquote. He also points out that, in Mafia, every post counts – even the seeming random votes and joking around in the early game can be of the greatest significance. Vikingfan then unvotes on the basis of us being at four votes, despite the fact we were only at three at the time. I’m willing to call that a miscount, though. LML calls it out as a scum protection tactic, then Fiasco points out that he wasn’t as close to lynch as was believed. Dragyn notes my lack of posting.
KingPin unvotes and FOS’s Vikingfan for no apparent reason (at least not to me on the re-read). Passdog then explains that it’s not the volume of posts but the cluttering nature of them that is causing his vote – a subtle distinction, but one I sympathise with. Fiasco disagrees with the point, and LML comments that he finds Fiasco and VikingFan the most suspicious people to date. I get prodded, and make a quick post without reasoning for my actions, based on my limited time online.
Norinel points out that it’s equally important to find out why the town aren’t pushing Fiasco’s wagon as why the scum aren’t. He also notes an interesting omission in a statement of Passdog’s, though it’s not necessarily significant since a lot of people would take the omission as an assumed axiom – I know I did. He also points out that all of Fiasco’s posts could well be significant in the long run. KingPin then agrees that LML is beginning to look rather interesting, pointing out how LML is using previous games and the results to justify current actions. LML says he feels no need to justify what he said, and mentions that now he finds Fiasco, Norinel and KingPin most likely to be the scum group. He also claims he’s said that before, but he’d never mentioned connections between KingPin and the other two before, and the last time he mentioned his most scummy list he only mentioned Fiasco and VikingFan. Interesting.
I still feel Fiasco is the scummiest thus far, but I can appreciate why some people are focusing more on LML. Anyways, after all that…
Confirm vote: Fiasco.
FOS: LoudmouthLee
Player-by-player analysis to follow in a day or so.
