Mini 443 - Tapioca Mafia - Game over!!

[Copp├â┬®lia]

*headsmack* Every game...what the heck was I thinking when I picked my name?? I'll go by anything, I promise.

random vote: Earwig

. Those things scare the bejeezus out of me.

[Copp├â┬®lia]

...I was asking for that, wasn't I?

Okay, Kabenon, let's try out that theory: *flicks on the forehead*

Well, did it make it better?

[Copp├â┬®lia]

In other news, I lost my first game here! Yay! Well, I feel I did a great performance in a losing job.

Not to mix my chocolate in your peanute butter, but that means I won my first game here. I'm not at all sure I deserved it. I learned a lot of things, though.

And Beeb's performance was fantastic. I totally don't trust you for a second in this one, by the way! IMGMEOY...

[Copp├â┬®lia]

You misspelled IGMEOY which is a definete scumtell! GASP!

Wait, I was clearly using the more ambiguous form, IMGMEOY....I've Maybe Got My Eye On You. This way, you can't be sure of what I'm really thinking. See??!

Mighty Fireball, this thread saw the start of Shânba's new name, that should be cause enough to feel special.

unvote; Vote: pickemgenuis

for clearly targeting people with accents, no matter what he claims the reason is.

[Copp├â┬®lia]

Okay, now that several people have pointed this out:

Bandwagons are the only way to move the game along, since nobody was just not voting. Now people seem to be bandwagoning on you, Ripley...

But earlier you said:

there were three votes for shady, and now there are three votes for you. If you didn't notice, it wasn't like I suddenly changed my vote to you.

I already cast my vote--I'm not looking for a bandwagon.

If you really feel bandwagons are the only way to move the game along- then why are you against them earlier? This feels weird to me.

unvote: Pickemgenius; vote: Khelvaster

[Copp├â┬®lia]

@BBB- you're basically saying that I jumped on the bandwagon and didn't bring anything new to the table, but I disagree with this on all counts. I don't consider two votes that went before me a bandwagon, and my own vote was based off of exactly the inconsistency I-not someone else- brought up. I saw something that pinged my scumdar, voted based off of it, and asked the player for more information- simple as that.

The inconsistency I brought up is significant to me. Inconsistency is the main reason I'm voting for Khelvaster, and his post last night doesn't make me want to change my vote.

[Copp├â┬®lia]

@Bob: Three votes is a bandwagon (albeit a small one), IMO. If you look on the MafiaWiki you'll see that the third person on a bandwagon is very likely to be scum. Granted, these numbers were found a long time ago, but they still have truth to them. I still think you're overreacting a bit to something that's kind of small, and I think you're overreacting to me, too. I haven't seen you play as scum before so I can't tell by meta game (although you have a lot to go off of, lol) but this doesn't seem like what you normally do.

You know, the very first mafia game I ever saw (I was a bystander then, not a participant) brought up the three vote=SCUMTELL! argument. It's actually how I found my way here....here's what I think about it. If we're in a game where 4 votes=lynch, a third vote is probably pretty attractive to scum, because it tips someone over into real danger of a lynch, but you don't have to be the one to hammer. I still don't know that I'd believe it was a scumtell even then, for two reasons: a) someone's got to cast a third vote- is it really always mafia? I don't think so and b) uh, scum read the wiki, too.

In this game, three votes is not even half of what it takes to lynch. I don't feel it places any real danger on a player, but hopefully it does place pressure. I'm still comfortable with my vote.

as for metagaming- well, I'll say this: I learned a lot in our first game here. You'd better believe I'm playing differently- hopefully, as a stronger player. Normally I try not to say this, but if you take a look at the other games I'm in now, you might see my behavior in them is pretty consistent across the board.

oh, and as for metagaming you? Hee, hee- Beeb, I wouldn't dream of trying. I've only seen you play one side! I clicked the 'reset' portion of my brain for your playing style when this game started.

@Khelvaster-I think you're being far too defensive, with that last post being totally unnecessary. Sometimes, scum lurk, especially newbie scum. It's not a crime to wonder where someone is when they haven't posted in a day, to make sure they're not lurking.

That is an illogical statement. Since you voted for me and provided some justification, no matter how bad that justification was, it's reasonable for us to believe you were intending to implicate me as being mafia.

pickem's already addressed this, but I wanted to let you know that your interpretation of his actions is not unanimous across the board. With have very little, if any, evidence to go on in D1. By your logic, we would never vote at all. You find things that ping your scumdar, then you start asking questions. Sometimes you base your vote on those reactions, and sometimes you vote to get a reaction. We've certainly gotten one from you, haven't we?

Here's my summation of your posts today: Posts 94-96 seem very confident, with you naming three suspects and giving some reasoning on why. You make a point to tell us you play in mIRC sometimes. In Post 100, you're even aggressive. And even when I didn't agree with some of the reasoning you laid out, I found this attitude normal and fine. Some players ask questions, poke at your theories- then in 107, you're asking a question about mafia terminology and announcing your newbie status in 108, even directing attention to when you joined. Then in 111, you say:

Saying in mIRC we bandwagoned early would imply that I am not used to the scum forums--something I wanted to avoid for reasons I already stated.

I'm sorry for using the WIFOM argument--I had no idea it was so frowned upon.

You say you didn't want us to know you were new to the forum, even though- as you yourself pointed out to us, we can plainly see when you joined every time you post. You say the reason you didn't want us to know is your confidence in catching scum, and that we wouldn't pay as much attention if we knew.

The only time you've offered any observations on other players is today, though, and your very first comment is that mIRC one. So- did that strategy not last long? Unless your strategy was to 'play the newbie card' all along, and we were, as you say, meant to gather from that frist post today that you were new.

Bottom line: I could go either way with you at this point. You did display that confidence in your posts that you talked about- I could see you as being town at this point. But I could also easily see you as using the 'I'm new' defense to cover a multitude of sins. I also dislike your overdefensiveness.

[Copp├â┬®lia]

Attacking one player's arguments against another because the logic is flawed or the interpretation is overly complicated is noble, but it results in defending a player without knowing their alignment. Unless there is good cause (suspicious amount of support for a weak attack, multiple players overlooking a flaw, etc), that's sloppy gameplay and just causes confusion in the ranks, imo.

This is a genuine question, not a criticism, because what you say makes a certain amount of sense to me. But- how do you hope the town will behave on D1? It seems to me that if we followed your example to it's logical conclusion, we'd have almost no activity the first day.

Maybe I'm asking the wrong question here.

Like I said, I try not too post too often on day one unless I have something valuable to add.

How do you define valuable?

[Copp├â┬®lia]

Okay, let's establish something here: I don't think it's the third vote in particular that makes you scummy, sorry if it sounded like that. What I was trying to state was that you seemed to be jumping on a popular attack with no real reason. Third vote is sort of a... erm, metaphor, if you will, for an attack on a person for no particular reason when they aren't close to being lynched but they're under fire from others.

It's not the danger, it's the fact that you're going with the popular opinion without any particular reason.

Okay, I get what you're saying now. But I still don't think it applies, because I do indeed have a 'particular reason'. Which I've stated. So this leads me to ask the question- do you still not see my reasoning? Or do you just not agree with it? Or option C: none of the above?

Bob- I don't get your last post, can I have a further explanation? I'm fried, papers, etc., so I don't have any more time to look it over.

Sure- d8p was stating his reasons for not posting much in the post I quoted from him. I can see the logic in what he's saying about potentially defending someone whose alignment is unknown, but what I can't see is a viable alternative. I was pointing this out, and asking how d8p saw the game turning out if we all adopted his example.

Later in the same post, he says he only posts when there's something valuable to add. I personally find it valuable to have a lot of posts from a lot of players, so I want how d8p defines a valuable post.

[Copp├â┬®lia]

d8p, I appreciate the time and effort you put into clarifying you thoughts for me. I'll be mulling them over for a while, too.

But if all else fails, I say that when the mod sets a deadline, that we just look at the most suspicious player, or the quietest player, and just lynch them (or force a role claim) just to keep the game moving. Anyone disagree with that?

What makes you think a deadline is going to happen? We've been prety active thus far.

Lynch the most suspicious player? Absolutely.

Lynch the quietest? I don't like this idea at all.

[Copp├â┬®lia]

Well, I mean lynch the most suspicious player, unless that person has done nothing more than cough at the wrong time and we've nothing else to go on,

Fortunately for us, this is not the case for our town.

in which case the town is probably better off just lynching the quietest as they are the ones who have had the least chance of giving themselves away if they are scum, and have

contributed the least to the town.

*cough*Earwig*cough*

(bolding mine)

Whenever people make this argument it reeks of scum to me. A townie contributes enormous value

simply by being town

. From a purely numbers standpoint alone, the more townies, the better it goes for us. Assuming he doesn't respond to prodding, I would much rather we get a replacement for Earwig than lynch him at this point. If he truly is scum, our chances of detecting that go up if he is replaced by an active player. If he's town, then we gain the benefits of having not lynched a townsperson, plus the added benefit of a more active player.

[Copp├â┬®lia]

I voted Earwig because the four posts he'd made avoided posting content and actually contained material I found suspicious.

Everyone keeps going about voting him for being silent, and there is even talk of replacing him, as if he hadn't been posting at all. In most games, the time elapsed since he last posted wouldn't raise an eyebrow.

This is a good point, and -just to make it clear- my posts on the subject of lynching quiet players in general and Earwig in specfic are directed towards Shadyforce, not you, Ripley. I thought you made it clear why you were voting for Earwig, and understand the reasoning behind it even if I haven't yet decided if I share it. My posts were a response to this series of comments:

But if all else fails, I say that when the mod sets a deadline, that we just look at the most suspicious player, or the quietest player, and just lynch them (or force a role claim) just to keep the game moving. Anyone disagree with that?

Well, I mean lynch the most suspicious player, unless that person has done nothing more than cough at the wrong time and we've nothing else to go on, in which case the town is probably better off just lynching the quietest as they are the ones who have had the least chance of giving themselves away if they are scum, and have contributed the least to the town.

*cough*Earwig*cough*

Where Shadyforce is plainly stating that the reason he'd vote Earwig is due to being the quietest player. I find the wording of post 134 the most suspicous, because it seems to me like an attempt to direct attention from suspicious players by saying that they have 'done nothing more than cough at the wrong time'.

@Khel and MF- I'm still trying to work my way through this argument. I know this- that this quote:

Khelvaster, I think you misunderstood me here. While I think it is true that having fewer posts with no content is equivilant to or worse than having more posts with more content, that doesn't mean that I support posting without content.

makes no sense to me, even in Khelvaster's interpretation. A little clarification, please?

[Copp├â┬®lia]

Aimee, that was a mind-blowingly awesome post, chock-full of reason and clear analysis. I've read it twice, and I'll need some time to process before sharing my thoughts.

I did want to pay you the respect of replaying to a question you posed towards me right away, though:

Coppélia disagrees with the fact that anyone “contributed least to the town”. Whilst that seems admirable, don’t you agree it is pretty obvious that people like me and Earwig have done nothing?

Your use of the term 'admirable' made me grin a bit, because I didn't intend my post to come across as altruistic in any way. I didn't mean to imply a sort of 'A for effort!' philosophy. Shadyforce was specfically stating that he believes lurkers=contributing least to town, which justifies lynching them. I was attempting to express my disagreement with this belief by pointing out that a townie lurker does indeed have value simply by being town. In other words, I won't be voting for you or Earwig because of lurking. If I ever vote for either of you, it will be because I found your actions suspicious. I don't find lurking a strong enough reason to risk lynching a lurking townie. Especially in D1, where our worst case scenario- having someone replace in- is hardly a worst case at all.

I don't know about Earwig yet. Honestly, don't think that lurking in and of itself is scummy: some types of lurking are scummy and some aren't necessarily. I'm trying to worl out what class of lurking earwig's lurking belongs to.

My interpretation of Aimee's post is that she is not voting Earwig based off of simply lurking; I don't see where she implies that she finds that a good enough reason to vote. Instead, Aimee has listed her main suspicion of Earwig to be his jump on the Khel bandwagon:

He then just jumps on the Khelvaster wagon saying “I am sort of just going along with the Khelvaster thing...”, which I see as overtly scummy. He puts a FoS on him, but it just seems like a way of fitting in with the majority. No reason is given, and I see this firmly as the most scummy thing at that point.

I agree with her reasoning here. When we (hopefully) hear from Earwig after the prod, I'd like to hear some explanatino from him on this point.

[Copp├â┬®lia]

I agree with this, and the reason I am voting Earwig is due to his actions, not his lurking. At the same time, you suggest "a townie lurker" has a value. Yet, how do we know that all lurkers are townies? You of course understand that a lurker could be strategically lurking as scum?

Question 1: We don't. Question 2: I do. There's no way for you and I to tell based off of lurking, is there? In fact, that is exactly my point- there's no way to tell. Lurking does not=scumtell. So I won't be basing votes off of it- and it seems you agree with me on this point.

My suggestion for an alternative to lynching lurkers is to have them replaced. If the player who replaces is active, we solve our problem- we have a better chance of deducing whether they are town or scum from an active player, and we can base our deductions on actions...not lack of them.

[Copp├â┬®lia]

Congratulations, Kabenon!!! I just finished my freshman year at uni. Some advice: enjoy your freedom while it lasts... 8)

Coppélia quotes some comments made by shadyforce before my post 139 (the post where I make the case against Earwig and vote him) but completely ignores Post 139 and shadyforce's Post 141, that is, both the posts that actually include votes on Earwig.

I did?

Ripley wrote:

I voted Earwig because the four posts he'd made avoided posting content and actually contained material I found suspicious.

Everyone keeps going about voting him for being silent, and there is even talk of replacing him, as if he hadn't been posting at all. In most games, the time elapsed since he last posted wouldn't raise an eyebrow.

This is a good point, and -just to make it clear- my posts on the subject of lynching quiet players in general and Earwig in specfic are directed towards Shadyforce, not you, Ripley. I thought you made it clear why you were voting for Earwig, and understand the reasoning behind it even if I haven't yet decided if I share it.

It's true that I didn't comment on 139, choosing to respond to something Shady said that caught my attention. But I'm quoting your post 149 in that post- which is the very next post you make after 139. And it's first thing I responded to after I come on that day.

As for ignoring Shady's post 141, it didn't ring any bells to me- I had to go back and look at what you were referencing:

Vote: Earwig because I like Ripley's post. And because bandwagons are more effective than mod-prods.

What's there to respond to here? He likes your post. He wants to bandwagon as a form of mod-prod. I'm not surprised he likes your post: you voted for a player he had talked of lynching for being quiet, only you provided some actual reasons for a vote. His idea of bandwagoning to provoke a response is a good one.

I don't understand what you mean by the town "not responding". This has been a very active and busy game. Was there some particular point you made that you thought was overlooked?

This was something that struck me too, as it sounds as if d8p is saying we've ignored a point he was trying to make. Totally possible- I'd like to hear what we missed.

Lurking does not=scumtell.

What precisely do you mean by a lurker? I'm not even sure everyone uses the same definition. My personal definition is somebody who posts, almost invariably without content, just often enough to avoid replacement. And I think there's a real correlation between this behavior and scumminess.

Lurking involves some minimal degree of presence. If somebody stops posting altogether, they aren't a lurker, they've quit the game. I agree that these people should usually be replaced unless they made some significantly scummy posts before leaving.[/quote]

A good question, and I agree with your definition for the most part; a lurker must be present, not completely absent, to be considered lurking. And as you said, they tend to surface only to give posts without content, such as a response to being voted or a mod-prod. Where we seem to disagree is that I don't believe there's always a scum/lurk correlation. Some pro town players with power roles- especially new players- attempt to keep out of the spotlight or harm's way, not realizing what a bad strategy it is. Some players become overwhelmed by post volume. Some have trouble with the uncertainty that D1 by nature contains.

Let me ask you this: would you be voting for Earwig if all he had done was lurk, instead of making the posts that you found suspicious?

scum tend to make arguments that turn out to have bad logic far more than townies do.

Since you asked for public opinion- where are you getting this statistic from? Because I can think of quite a few arguments, just during the brief time I've started playing mafia, that were utterly lacking in logic- and turned out to be from townies in the end.

[Copp├â┬®lia]

@Earwig: wait, so are you saying that youy believe MF and d8p are scum because:

a) MF and d8p were mildly attacking each other, and:
b) you were told this was scummy behavior by...d8p???

This seems like circular logic to me.

[Copp├â┬®lia]

I tried to say this before, but I wasn't very clear. This is not an inconsistency. In the second, earlier quote, Khel was pointing out that he was already on one bandwagon, and he wasn't looking for another. That, to me, is definitely not speaking out against bws.

I re-read the first four pages of our game, and that explanation satisifies me. As it was the main reason for my voting,

unvote: Khelvaster

One question: Khel, why didn't you point this out? Or did you, and I somehow missed it?

Because you've only been playing here since the 5th, am I right in assuming that you haven't played a deadlined game here? Because I'm telling you from personal experience that

we do not want to be deadlined.

. It is a bad, bad thing for the town. For one, the more substancial posts we have, the more we have to go on in D2. For another, having a deadline gives scum a chance to manipulate the lynch by hanging back, then hammering. Also, it forces townies to make decisions about lynches before they are ready. Make no mistake, a deadline is a punishment. I think this game is going too well to be deadlined.

If you feel we're missing a sense of urgency, my suggestion to you would be to make a case and try to convince some of us you're on the right track.

[Copp├â┬®lia]

No offense taken, BBB *airkiss*.

If you want me to go over why I voted for Khel, and where I still find holes in what you're saying about it, I will. But I don't want to flog a dead horse about a vote I'm no longer doing, especially when I'm going to end up repeating myself.

@d8p- I admit, I've been glued to your anaylsis like it was the latest installment of my favorite show. You've inspired me to take some time tomorrow after work to re-read the whole thread and come up with some questions, and conclusions.

re: challenging me/defending Khel: I like it when people challenge me on my assertions, as it gives me a chance to either a) strengthen my argument, or b) see flaws where I previously didn't. It also gives other players the benefit of looking closer at exchanges they may have missed, and drawing their own conclusions. If what you're saying is that you're worried that you're making Khel's case for him and you're not yet sure you want to be...I get that, but I still think you should say what's on your mind. If Khel is scum, such close scrutinty on his posts by many players will help reveal it. If he's town, you're helping the town, period.

[Copp├â┬®lia]

Oh, I did forget about this:

Bob, despite being in like twelve games, is still a goon, which disturbs me.

I'm in four games, actually...but that's not my point. Why on earth does my post count disturb you?

[Copp├â┬®lia]

I'm still re-reading the thread, but I wanted to pause for a minute to say "Guh-

what

? to Khel. You cannot pick D2, D3, and so forth lynchings. No, seriously, this is such a bad idea. We have no idea what information the end of D1 and the ensuing night will bring. It can, and should, change our opinons of others. To have that kind of tunnel vision is going to be bad for town.

[Copp├â┬®lia]

I really wish people would read my posts fully, instead of cherry picking. I put in the caveat,

MF has said exactly want I wanted to say to this.

No one cherry picked your posts. The very caveat you point to suggests that you have already closed your mind to other options- several players are telling you why this is a bad idea. On top of that, the avenue of thought you've chosen is a bad one, and several players have told you why on that count, as well. I don't like how overdefensive you are when someone questions you, especially when the questions are very valid ones.

If you were a more experienced player, your recent behavior would already have me voting for you. My feeling on you right now is that you're newbie town, not newbie scum, but your position as new to the game isn't going to excuse every suspicious action you make for very much longer.

As for the actual content of your posts, here's my thoughts on your suspect list:

BBB: Totally possible. There has been some convienent mixups, and misrepresentations happening. I know Beeb to be a very good player- an unorthodox one that thinks out of the box. (This is my response to the call for thoughts on BBB's calling himself scum, btw). However, I haven't seen any solid case built on him yet, including your own and d8p's. I'm keeping my mind completely open as far as he's concerned.

Earwig: He has started posting more, but I'm not greatly impressed by the content of his posts. I still don't agree with his logic in the d8p MF pair. He's high on my list of suspicious players.

Shanba: Unfortunately, I find it hard to get a read on Shanba with so few posts. I appreciate you owning up to biting off more than you can chew, Shanba, but if you're not going to be able to particpate in the game more in the future I wish you'd consider replacing out. If you are going to stay, I'd like to hear more about what you think about the other players.

d8p: Not seeing your reasoning here at all. If this is it:

You seem to believe anyone who changes their mind after listening to a logical argument is "flighty," and therefore is hiding something.

I don't find that true, or a strong case at all.

vote: Earwig

. I'd like to hear some analysis from you on the other players.

[Copp├â┬®lia]

@Kab- we'll miss you, but what an awesome opportunity! I look foward to playing with you in the future.

@Khel- fine. Based on what? Sum up your cases to me, the ones built on something other than your feelings. Doesn't have to be lengthy, just a summation based on facts and reasoning will do.

[Copp├â┬®lia]

*Bob waves* Joe! I'm quite pleased to see you join this game. I'm looking foward to your input.

[Copp├â┬®lia]

Maybe it's just because I find your avatar sexy*.








(*no, that's not it.)