Mini 1404 - Monopoly Mafia - Game Over

[UberNinja]

aka: ignoring Shana because she plays Drawception too much

[Mehdi2277]

Getting me confused with someone? I don't think I've ever played that game.

[Mehdi2277]

That and I'm male.

[Baby Spice]

So I'm supposed to be saying my action is scummy and if I don't I'm even scummier. And you can call it stirring up against you or me wanting her to vote you. Yes I want you to look suspicious to others when I think your scummy.

No, you're supposed to admit that your posts are designed to stir Jal up against me again. Because that is what they are. Trying to deny it is real bad. Stirring like you are doing is also real bad.

If you thought I was scum, you would be trying to build a case against me. This you haven't done.

It is a classic scum technique.


Actually:

Since it's a big portion of why you're being fosed

Who is FOSing me? I don't think I've seen one on anyone this game.

Why do you ask now? Why not a hell of a lot earlier?

Since it's a big portion of why you're being fosed so I wanted to ask it clearly. If it was bad before you analyzed the wagon why not say it then is the root of the problem.

But why now?

[Mehdi2277]

Since fosing someone and pushing their lynch requires a case? Cases are only worth doing in clearing things up. The reasoning against you jal's has formatted more neatly but yes it is the way you suspected her.

I think anyone who's voted you has fosed you.

Now since it's part of why you're being fosed, I noticed it was never asked, and the question was loaded since I can't see a good answer. You thought jal's vote was suspicion before analyzing the wagon, but only say so after analyzing the wagon.

[TehBrawlGuy]

I suspect you. Jal the main person who argued might be voting elsewhere but that is not a reason for me to stop pushing you.

Actually you're last ten to fifteen posts are trying to stir Jal up against me. No one else.

No, this is why she's scummy. Nothing.

Just you trying to stir Jal up against me.

That you continue whilst denying it is scummy as hell.

SC's posts and votes are not town SC, but then that could be explained by SC's "replace out" post.

But Medhi trying to stir up an arguement like he is.

Vote Medhi

Scum medhi means conf town Jal, since no scum would stir up an argument like that involving a buddy.

So I'm supposed to be saying my action is scummy and if I don't I'm even scummier. And you can call it stirring up against you or me wanting her to vote you. Yes I want you to look suspicious to others when I think your scummy.

@TBG

Goal of the first couple quotes to me is? I've already changed reads on the player I was referring to with that.

What would you rather me call Xis's vote? I think it's obvious I was criticizing the lurker wagon there.

Although the argument to definition on SK vs just scum on wagon is weak. Do you think it's scummy to treat a SK as scum for wagon checking purposes?

First post is probably pretty pointless since we're in late D1. I'm just used to replying to stuff like that, since the discussion it generates is usually good RVS icebreaking stuff. That said, it does matter (although only a little) even if you've changed stances, since you could just as easily change back.

I'd rather you call Xis, well, Xis. Adding "the sheep" to the end of his name doesn't criticize the

Lurker wagon

, it criticizes

Xis

and paints him as either Scum or weak-willed/derptown. It's like Baby's repeated use of "strange" that got called out earlier.

Depends on the context. Baby was using that data to help push Jal's wagon and/or to get more focus on the people on Lurker's wagon. Since (at least on D1) SKs aren't usually privy to information the Town doesn't have, I feel they should be treated as such in terms of VCA. In short, she was using bad data to help build a wagon on Jal and/or get attention off of Lurker, which I do feel is scummy.

tl;dr

Read the spoiler, lazy.

HAY

THATS MY SCHTICK

DW BRO

YOUR OTHER SCHTICK OF NOT POSTING ANY REAL CONTENT IS SAFE


@Spice Spice Baby: How exactly did you reach the figure of 72%?

[Mehdi2277]

Considering it was in the context of comparing wagons it was meant to criticize the wagon.

I think her treating SK as scum is a weak detail thing, but overall we agree at least.

[TehBrawlGuy]

Considering it was in the context of comparing wagons it was meant to criticize the wagon.

I think her treating SK as scum is a weak detail thing, but overall we agree at least.

I see where you're coming from with that.

Eh, I feel like it shows she was using really skewed numbers from Go, and it was something nobody had brought up, so it was worth mentioning regardless.

[Mehdi2277]

On that note what is your read on lurker?

[TehBrawlGuy]

I dont look for scumtells, but scum mindsets.

This x1000. Scumtells are manifestations of Scum mindsets, and it drives me up the wall when people go on about scumtells for days. Chase the people instead of their shadows, so to speak. Currently, this is very relevant to Lurker's claim. Not claiming full info under pressure is usually a scumtell, yes, but any Scum mindset that would prompt him to do that here could be a Town mindset just as easily.

[insert wall here]

Lurker feels very tonally Town, but his actions are closer to null/slightly Scum. All in all, slight town lean.[/spoiler]

This what you were looking for, or do you want more specifics?

[TehBrawlGuy]

Oh, I did forget to mention one thing. His claiming Vanilla Townie w/ 1-shot Watcher as opposed to just saying "I can't do anything, but I can 1-shot watch." or "I'm a 1-shot watcher." feels like a townslip.

[Baby Spice]

@Spice Spice Baby: How exactly did you reach the figure of 72%?

Went back through the mini theme queue and looked at completed games, using the first vote count post that had a wagon of at least four people for my data points.

Then just counted and divided and all that good stuff.

Mini games are remarkably consistant in their format which is why I feel this sort of approach works. Actually, it was a game where a player declared there were three scum because there usually is three scum in a mini that got me thinking about it. (Turned out a scum tell for him in a mini was being vague about the number of scum in a mini)

I counted the SK as scum, though I will grant that counting an SK as town might have been better. As it was there was only one SK in the set anyway so it made little difference.

I'm reasonable happy with the result since in a 3:10 format (By far the most common mini format) any random grouping of four players has a 71% chance of having at least one scum in it. (Not that that is anything more than an indication that the rough and ready survey of the games is about right)


Pretty sure that most of this is mentioned earlier, but I can forgive you if you skimmed over it a little.

and Medhi, I do believe I stated that I specifically wanted to look at the first wagon to get to four votes.
(Ok, a quick check shows that it was more implied)

[TehBrawlGuy]

Oh cool. I posted my 585, it went through, and then when the page reloaded 586 was up too. I wonder how close the timing had to be for that?

[TehBrawlGuy]

@Spice Spice Baby: How exactly did you reach the figure of 72%?

Went back through the mini theme queue and looked at completed games, using the first vote count post that had a wagon of at least four people for my data points.

Then just counted and divided and all that good stuff.

Mini games are remarkably consistant in their format which is why I feel this sort of approach works. Actually, it was a game where a player declared there were three scum because there usually is three scum in a mini that got me thinking about it. (Turned out a scum tell for him in a mini was being vague about the number of scum in a mini)

I counted the SK as scum, though I will grant that counting an SK as town might have been better. As it was there was only one SK in the set anyway so it made little difference.

I'm reasonable happy with the result since in a 3:10 format (By far the most common mini format) any random grouping of four players has a 71% chance of having at least one scum in it. (Not that that is anything more than an indication that the rough and ready survey of the games is about right)


Pretty sure that most of this is mentioned earlier, but I can forgive you if you skimmed over it a little.

and Medhi, I do believe I stated that I specifically wanted to look at the first wagon to get to four votes.
(Ok, a quick check shows that it was more implied)

I didn't skim it, but I read the whole thread at like 04:00 in my timezone and I was super tired. My notes were pretty derpy, so I imagine a lot was lost. I had a couple posts flagged as scummy/town that were totally not. (sometimes even the opposite!)

You know you just defeated your own argument, though, right? If I can get a 71% chance of a Scum being in any 4 names I draw out of a hat, I don't really need to focus on the first 4 people on a wagon so I can get a ~71% chance of one of them being Scum.

[Mehdi2277]

It's fine you checked the wagon just not that you didn't point out jal's vote being bad before you looked at it when you claim you thought it was bad before the wagon anaylsis.

Think Jal's vote is bad -> Point it out -> Analyze whole wagon makes sense while Think Jal's vote is bad -> Analyze wagon -> And then say her vote is bad doesn't.

[Mehdi2277]

And TBG that's fine. I kind of forgot the lurker read, and it was mainly the claim stuff I was curious.

[Baby Spice]

Oh cool. I posted my 585, it went through, and then when the page reloaded 586 was up too. I wonder how close the timing had to be for that?

Close enough that I didn't get your 585 as a ninja post.

[Baby Spice]

You know you just defeated your own argument, though, right? If I can get a 71% chance of a Scum being in any 4 names I draw out of a hat, I don't really need to focus on the first 4 people on a wagon so I can get a ~71% chance of one of them being Scum.

Of course most of that was in this post.

Including the answer to your follow up question.

[UberNinja]

Getting me confused with someone? I don't think I've ever played that game.

http://drawception.com/player/7790/shana/

Don't lie to me!

[TehBrawlGuy]

You know you just defeated your own argument, though, right? If I can get a 71% chance of a Scum being in any 4 names I draw out of a hat, I don't really need to focus on the first 4 people on a wagon so I can get a ~71% chance of one of them being Scum.

Of course most of that was in this post.

Including the answer to your follow up question.

So you knew mathematically that it was no better than drawing from a hat, yet still trusted it under flawed logic? The point I'm trying to make is that since:

in a 3:10 format ... any random grouping of four players has a 71% chance of having at least one scum in it.

...it doesn't verify looking at the first 4 on a wagon as Scum; it defeats it.

[TehBrawlGuy]

ebwop:

Getting me confused with someone? I don't think I've ever played that game.

http://drawception.com/player/7790/shana/

Don't lie to me!

Stop active lurking. I can and will call you on it every time.

[Lord Mhork]

Checking in. Will catch up later today.

[Lord Mhork]

@Medhi: Do you think I'm just not understanding StrangeCoug properly? Do you understand his reasoning when he originally states it? Also, do you think any of his reasoning is scummy, especially now that he has explained more?

I understand him currently although I still think the reasoning is weak for why he pushed lurker and stayed with the wagon. Anyways the primary scummy thing is the way he's voted so the post before that kind of says why:

"It's mainly being opportunistic and not as much as thought with some votes then I'd think he'd have as town"

She also brought up good points against spice so why SC over her?

Because the whole thing with Baby just looks like a battle of what people think of a statistic that is blatantly obvious. The whole thing about answering the question is all a patience thing and how long someone is willing to wait for an answer.

I may have missed something, but this is what the Baby argument looked like to me, and it wasn't enough to vote that way.

I realize jal replied to this already but adding to 518 considering the second point of it plus most of it is mainly on lack of backing for a statistic and the reason for the vote itself on jal. When you see someone make a vote you'd call bs do you normally need to re-read the wagon to see it or just notice it as it occurs?

@Spice what did you think of jal's vote when she made it and before you saw the wagon and analyzed the wagon as a whole?

Jal how did SC's vote on spice affect your read on him?

@Mhork, and what's the scum motivation in hiding info that'll be pried out fairly quickly?

Denying town information? Maybe he didn't know it'd be pried out so quickly. Or maybe he didn't think it through. He was asked a fairly abrupt question and if he had lied there it would have been really, really high risk later on when came claiming time. Imagine if he has claimed VT and then maintained his 1 card claim when all of us had two or three cards. That would have been very bad news indeed for him.

Mod: I hereby request replacement. I'm sorry, but I feel really detached from the game.

This is weird. He was getting a little heat, but not a lot, so I don't know if this is legitimate detachment or if he was afraid of pressure/upset with his role/etc. Prolly it's a null tell, but it's worth keeping an eye on.

@Mhork

:

Issue I have with that lurker logic is that you're trying to rationalize as to why he hid information when the fact remains that he did in fact try to hide information. I don't care that he backed up and fessed up the rest of his role; why didn't he do so in the first place?

Town and scum do stupid things. You find someone's alignment by figuring out the motivation for why they do the things they did, and if it fits the scenario. If scum Lurker wanted to hide information and is being honest about not knowing how the cards were probably dealt equally, why then as scum, would he even out his card at all a few minutes later anyway?

Why would your case have to be all that great to be worth sheeping?

Answer:

First, why is sheeping bad? Why is it inherently scummy and voteworthy? What if I flat out admit that I liked the point Jal made so much that it seemed like the best vote?

You liked the point I made so much it helped influence your vote.

Because he was directly asked and a lie there would haunt him all game? Wasn't this when people were doing heavy speculation that each person had two or three cards? And didn't he claim only when someone flat out asked if he had a second card like everyone else?

I'm easy to win over. >.<
You had qualms against him that matched qualms I had. You may not have won scummy for the case you made, but it was horrible. I liked it, so I agreed. What's wrong there?

@TehBrawlGuy
It looks weak and flip floppy. StrangerCoug is conceding that he is playing weakly and I feel like that is him trying to excuse bad play for 'not getting his head in the game.' I don't like outs like that.

ebwop:

Getting me confused with someone? I don't think I've ever played that game.

http://drawception.com/player/7790/shana/

Don't lie to me!

Stop active lurking. I can and will call you on it every time.

^This.

I like brawlie's content, so he can go in townieland with plessiMarven. Yay!

[Mehdi2277]

UN, nearly all of my accounts online use this same username. Me liking an anime character =/= me having the username shana elsewhere.

And mhork the point is either he was dumb and didn't realize he'd be asked or he didn't do it out of scum motivation (since I think it's pretty obvious you'd be ask to clarify things if you put it vaguely).

[UberNinja]

I am currently active lurking. I'm also currently waiting for TehBrawlGuy to call me out on it.