Mini 443 - Tapioca Mafia - Game over!!

[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.

[MightyFireball]

d8p wrote:
As I said, I'm most suspicious of MightyFireball because he continues to go along with what is being said without any attempt to make his own analysis. That shows lack of interest. Yet he has quite a few posts.

Lack of interest in helping the town plus maintaining a high post count equals trouble.


Oh No you didn't! You're saying, in the same breath, that you're not interested enough to post as nothing's happened, but you say that someone else doing the same thing is scummy. That's not good. I don't buy it, d8p. Too hypocritical for my like.

Well, I think the main difference between he and I in this situation is that he didn't make as many posts. That's probably why that post didn't seem hypocritical to him, but you're right, it is. In fact, having fewer posts is probably as bad or worse than having more with little information in them. It, as he said, shows a lack of interest in the game.

No, MightyFireball I hadn't missed it, but I'm not saying it was not good enough, for goodness sake. I marked it down as unhelpful, which, to be fair, was a little harsh.

Mild attacks always worry me more than strong ones - I can't help thinking the defender and attacker are in cahoots, firing blanks.

It's this statement that has me very suspicious. D8p made two posts saying he wanted to pressure me, saying in the first one, "I want to light a fire under MF and see what colour the smoke is". It is illogical, therefore, that he should remove all pressure against me after I provided just one example against his argument. If he really was suspicious of me, he probably would've kept the pressure on and not folded at the slightest resistance. In fact, it reminds me of the mild attacks that he mentioned in the latter half of that post. Now

that

is hypocritical, unless I am much mistaken. This leads me to

Unvote

and

Vote: d8p

[beanbagboy]

Firstly: I was saying that you originally jumped with little reason. I agree with and support the explanation you gave, it was really just saying that I felt you hadn't initially supplied a reason.

Gah, Secondly, ok, I think I understand, he's saying if you defend a sloppy attack then you're defending the attackee, and you agree with him, but... you don't see what else you could do? Ok. Gotcha.

Ok. That explains lots.

[Khelvaster]

Mightyfireball seemed to have been going off pretty strongly as mafia, first making an all-out attack against me, then an all-out attack against d8p, but the fact that he supported pickem as not being scum makes him seem not as scummy to me.

I can't understand his argument against d8p though--

d8p wrote:
As I said, I'm most suspicious of MightyFireball because he continues to go along with what is being said without any attempt to make his own analysis. That shows lack of interest. Yet he has quite a few posts.

Lack of interest in helping the town plus maintaining a high post count equals trouble.

Well, I think the main difference between he and I in this situation is that he didn't make as many posts. That's probably why that post didn't seem hypocritical to him, but you're right, it is. In fact, having fewer posts is probably as bad or worse than having more with little information in them. It, as he said, shows a lack of interest in the game.

Making more posts just for the sake of making posts is shallow. It means more stuff to wade through at the beginning of the game. So is making a lot of posts to accuse various random people at the beginning of the game--those posts have no meaning (randoms are ok, but not one person making 5 randoms. Keep it to 1 random per person.) The game progresses much more easily when posts either start accusing someone, refute the accusation, continue an accusation, or point out trends or logic flaws. d8p seems to recognize this; you don't, MF.

It's this statement that has me very suspicious. D8p made two posts saying he wanted to pressure me, saying in the first one, "I want to light a fire under MF and see what colour the smoke is". It is illogical, therefore, that he should remove all pressure against me after I provided just one example against his argument. If he really was suspicious of me, he probably would've kept the pressure on and not folded at the slightest resistance. In fact, it reminds me of the mild attacks that he mentioned in the latter half of that post. Now

that

is hypocritical, unless I am much mistaken. This leads me to

Unvote

and

Vote: d8p

You put words into d8p's mouth that he didn't use or even imply. You have no idea what his intentions were--he was using a valid argument, and giving you a chance to respond. After you rebutted his argument succesfully, he didn't persue that argument anymore. That's also probably stemming from the way I was crucified after trying to rebute your rebuttals--d8p doesn't want to be accused any more than I did.

[d8P]

Coppélia:
How do I hope the town will behave on D1? There's no easy answer, because the beauty of this game is that it's complex. Logically, I suppose. With a little randomness thrown in. I don't think every player has to throw their two cents onto every random vote or bw, but of course we need to be wary of falling into the group-think trap. Moderation is important, is all.I'm not dictating how other people should play, either - this discussion of tactics started when I'd been prodded for the second time even though I'd been posting on average once a real day.

Anyway, Antrax's article How to be a good townie puts it very well. I'm not suggesting you need to read it, I'm saying that I agree with his tactics.

I define something as valuable if it makes at least some of the town go "Hey, that's right". Till now, this post doesn't qualify.

Beanbagboy:
1. Anything anyone posts on day one is valuable? Where to begin?
While all posts potentially contain useful information, in reality, they don't. All I need is one example, but let me point you in the direction of posts 6, 9, 11- 14, 18-20 and post 24. Post 20 is the only one which contains a vote. I consider it valueless as it's where you unvoted pickem, voted kabenon, unvoted kabenon and revoted pickem.

"

You

should know" now that not everything everyone posts is valuable.

2. The point of day one is to talk about things... (true)
...and figure out who the scum are from discussion only.
This seems to be the crux of your criticism.

Just to make things clear. I'm not advocating silence. I've been saying that

I

try not to post

too much

, or

without a good reason

. And the only reason I brought it up was because I was asked within two pages to post more even though I'd posted twice in those two pages.

I'll try not to use so many qualifiers if that'll help (note: this doesn't mean

you

shouldn't use

any

)

3.

As I said, I'm most suspicious of MightyFireball because he continues to go along with what is being said without any attempt to make his own analysis. That shows lack of interest. Yet he has quite a few posts.

Lack of interest in helping the town plus maintaining a high post count equals trouble.

Oh No you didn't!

Oh, yes I did! [/panto] I didn't say "I'm most suspicious of Fireball because...", though, if that's what you mean. I did say "MightyFireball stands out as having contributed the least content." I can tell from this that you'd prefer me to be more precise.

4.

You're saying, in the same breath, that you're not interested enough to post as nothing's happened, but you say that someone else doing the same thing is scummy. That's not good. I don't buy it, d8p. Too hypocritical for my like.

Speaking of precision... Not interested enough to post as nothing's happened? That annoys me. Using someone's words against them is great but precisely whose words did you take that gem from? You obviously either didn't understand what I wrote, or you're trying to misrepresent it. Please clarify.

5.

No, MightyFireball I hadn't missed it, but I'm not saying it was not good enough, for goodness sake. I marked it down as unhelpful, which, to be fair, was a little harsh.

Mild attacks always worry me more than strong ones - I can't help thinking the defender and attacker are in cahoots, firing blanks.

Even more incriminating, IMO. He asks MF for a reason,

...no, I didn't. I said he wasn't contributing content but was posting a lot. I said that someone who isn't interested in helping the town but posts a lot is scummy.

MF points out he started the frigging wagon,

... wrong again. He said he had made one post that wasn't derived from someone else's analysis and in the same post said "It may not have been particularly elaborate [...] I'm not entirely sure if you missed that one, or if you just didn't think it was good enough to count."

and d8p says that that's not good enough.

... strike three. The entire point

of the post you quoted

, no less, was to temper the tone of the accusation I leveled at MF. I think it's hilarious that you quoted something I wrote, and instead of arguing something in the quote you falsified what I'd written previously, misrepresented the response that got and then lied about the content of the quote.

MightyFireball: I'm still voting for you. I still think you're scum trying to fly below the radar by contributing as little as possible by way of analysis. I didn't mean to give you the impression that was easing off you.

Post 119 (paraphrased above) struck me as apologetic and hurt. So I tried to remove any personal attack from it in post 120. I don't think I need to be insulting when offensive will do

More later.

[shadyforce]

Unvote: pickemgenius

Mod:

Can we get an updated vote count please?

Lots of good theoretical discussion on how to play day 1. I've always been of the opinion that day 1 progress is only made by random or almost random bandwagons... and I feel it might as well be on the lurkers than any active player, unless some serious suspicion arises.

But I see everyone is at least contributing somewhat, with the exception of Aimee but she has explained herself and promised to do so this weekend.

If there is no major source for suspicion, even on day 1, I don't believe the answer is to "keep quiet until something worthy of commenting on comes up". The town needs to start throwing it's weight around a little more, to make people nervous.

I'll do some analysing tomorrow (if I can - I may be going to a birthday party for the weekend). 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?

[kabenon007]

heh heh, I love a good role claim...

[kabenon007]

while I agree with what d8P said, that you can't just randomly switch from bandwagon to bandwagon, I do have to also agree with Bobelia, that that is sometimes the only way day 1 is played. In my opinion, all that we can do is find the most scummy person, put a little pressure on them, get them into a discussion, even a discussion about the way day 1 should be handled, and wait for someone to slip up.

[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.

[shadyforce]

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*

[Ectomancer]

On the lynching block today:

voting: 9/12

pickemgenius (1) - kabenon007
Khelvaster (4) - Ripley, pickemgenius, Coppélia, Shanba
Shanba (1) - Aimee
MightyFireball (1) - d8P
d8P (2) - beanbagboy, MightyFireball

not voting: 3/12

shadyforce
Earwig
Khelvaster

With 12 alive, it's 7 to lynch.

If you need prods, just ask, otherwise I prefer to allow lurkers to lurk

[Shanba]

hmm. I think Mighty Fireball and Beanbagboy came out of the argument looking better than D8P, but regardless, I think the case on Khelvaster is currently stronger. However,

FoS: D8P

. Note that Khelvaster is now defending D8P. I'd honestly be happy with lynching either one of them at this point.

[kabenon007]

I'm going to

unvote

now, because that was just random, and no longer necessary.

[Aimee]

unvote Shanba

Reread already commenced!

I am now able to participate fully, and I am really sorry for the inconvenience.

[Ripley]

I'm getting more and more suspicious of Earwig, who has made just 4 brief posts so far.

Vote: Ripley

because those damn things scared me in that movie.

Jokey vote.

Unvote: Ripley

Even though it was lynch -3, It's a little early to tell anyone's alignment yet. It would have been nice to know what roles exist in this game, though.

Unvotes after three more votes are placed on me very quickly. Accompanied by a couple of vagueish remarks, the second of which seems somewhat dubious. Is he saying it would have been nice if the (random) bandwagon had advanced to the point where I roleclaimed?

Sorry - not intentionally lurking. I'll post thoughts soon.

Presumably in response to shadyforce naming him as a lurker in post 76, about 12 hours earlier. No attempt at content.

My favorite color is blue, but I like red too, as well as combinations of both colors.

Seriously, I'm sort of going along with the Khelvaster thing but need to re-read to see why. For now:

FoS: Khelvaster

In response to Kabenon007's post 78. Are these the thoughts he said he'd post soon? There are no useful thoughts about the game at all. Half this post is a nonsense reply about favorite colors (scum love to get involved in jokey diversions; so much more convenient than actually talking about the game).

The rest of it is pretty murky. Earwig seems to imply support of the Khelvaster bandwagon without having the least idea why, or what the case against Khelvaster is. It's like he's booking himself a reserve place on the wagon in case that should prove convenient later, whilst not actually committing himself to it in case it prove

inconvenient

later. Contributing absolutely no content, and falling back on the old "I need to reread" - surely a bit premature for this particular excuse? The game had only been running two RL days at that point and was only on page 4, with the first couple of pages mainly given over to jokes and banter. And Earwig had made 4 posts during that time, showing that he's been around throughout.

Unvote: Khelvaster
Vote: Earwig

[shadyforce]

I'm heading to that 21st this weekend, so I probably won't be on until Monday lunch time or evening.

[shadyforce]

Vote: Earwig

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

[Khelvaster]

I don't really understand why everyone suddenly moved to earwig so fast. Just because he isn't talking much, does that really implicate him in being mafia?

[beanbagboy]

Whoa, I missed a lot, I need to read this, but just so you all know, I'm talking to bob in my last post, didn't see you MF! (I agree with you, though.)

Let me read, then I'll comment. Wow, this is fast!

[Ripley]

I don't really understand why everyone suddenly moved to earwig so fast. Just because he isn't talking much, does that really implicate him in being mafia?

Everyone? It was just two people.

Overestimating bandwagons seems to be a persistent habit of yours.

And if you had read my post through you'd see it wasn't just that he hasn't said much, it was also the things he

had

said, that made me change my vote.

[beanbagboy]

Ok. I'm still kind of reeling from all the posts (not complaining, activity is a good thing) but I think d8p doesn't look much more townie. Also, I agree that Khel defending d8p looks... murky.

Earwig is just being silent. I do agree he should post more, but I don't think it's suspicious just yet. It could quickly get suspicious though.

So: d8p vote stays, Khel gets a FOS, and Earwig needs a

mod prod

, IMO.

You guys agree?

[pickemgenius]

[quote="beanbagboy"]

Earwig needs a

mod prod

, IMO.

You guys agree?[/quote


word up. I'm itching to hear from him, about everything that's happened.

[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.

[beanbagboy]

:goodposting:, Bob. Lynching lurkers does us nothing. If they are lurking, yet online, that says something, but for all we know Earwig doesn't frequent the site. That could have nothing to do with his alignment.

FoS: ShadyForce

[Ripley]

Why do you keep missing the point?

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.

It is clear from his posting that he was watching the thread since he twice responded to invitations to post.

Lynching lurkers does us nothing. If they are lurking, yet online, that says something, but for all we know Earwig doesn't frequent the site.

We

do

know. He has made 11 posts in other games since his last post in this game. You can use the Search option to find out stuff like this.