Mini 521 (SMSM, Ended)

[Sammich]

We agreed on lynching Fiasco?

[Adele]

deadline incoming

That is pretty damn ironic coming from you.

I will greatly enjoy watching certain people make asses out of themselves by lynching me.

God, yes, how embarrassing: an info-free short-deadline day-1 lynch that doesn't have a perfect justification behind it. Boy will

my

face be red if Fiasco's innocent!

[Xdaamno]

I will greatly enjoy watching certain people make asses out of themselves by lynching me.

<- Certain people

(the original quote was by Fiasco iirc)

Wait, so you're admitting you're going to lynch the wrong guy? Or have I taken this statement wrong?

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

I'm not lynching Fiasco because I think he is subgameScum, I'm lynching Fiasco because I think he is MetaGameScum.

[WaterboyWaldo]

I'm not lynching Fiasco because I think he is subgameScum, I'm lynching Fiasco because I think he is MetaGameScum.

Me too. ThornedRose as well, but I don't think I can generate a lynch on him today.

[Max]

I did consider voting Fiasco but I try not to be, in any way, involved in day 1 lynches unless I feel at least 70% certain they are scum...

[Fiasco]

Max, best unvote me then, ah?

Everyone, I apologize for my earlier frustrated outbursts. I do still consider the case against me weak to nonexistent, on both the subgame level and the metagame level. Responses to specific claims to follow when I get the chance.

Pooky, Waldo, in the mean time, could you please give me a better idea as to what I'm being accused of? It seems to have something to do with me claiming metatownies should play well for whatever side they are on -- but I'm hardly the only one making that claim (or assuming it in play), and it still seems true to me insofar as intentional bad play is hard to punish in the metagame.

[Adele]

I'm not lynching Fiasco because I think he is subgameScum, I'm lynching Fiasco because I think he is MetaGameScum.

So, if he comes up town, will you push for the town to throw the game so you can eliminate him?

I'm just playing the game right now. That kind of clever stuff is, for me, for the second half of games (I'm speaking here of the metagame) when the town has enough information to make some kind of sense of it.

[mith]

Deadline:

Approximately 22 hours from this post.

Vote Count:

6 to lynch.

Fiasco: 4 (Adele, Max, PookyTheMagicalBear, WaterboyWaldo)
Sammich: 2 (ryan, SomeStrangeSimenon)
WaterboyWaldo: 2 (kabenon007, Xdaamno)
Max: 1 (Fiasco)
PookyTheMagicalBear: 1 (Thorned Rose)

[Fiasco]

If only one thing is clear, it's that this subgame requires a more confrontational style. I know this post is unlike me, but I think it's necessary to be a bit shoutier.

I don't understand why you said this. I think what's necessary (at least

now

) is exactly the opposite -- let's make a point of de-escalating the sarcasm and discussing constructively.

yeah, if I'd not made a point of saying it might be unutterably dumb, and asked specifically for thoughts.

I don't see how this matters much. There are two reasons why your bringing up the plan could be seen as scummy. First, people could have missed the flaw in the plan and implemented it. But they weren't going to do so blindly anyway; they were going to examine it critically whether or not you asked for thoughts etc. Second, a few uncautious people might have said whether they had the same role before the flaw could be found. Again, why would those people pay a lot of attention to how confident you were in proposing it? What matters is whether the idea is out there. So I don't think bringing up the

possibility

of it being a scum tell is at all unreasonable. I would be more reassured had you warned people not to give out the information until we had all examined the plan.

You would be right to disagree with me if the topic of discussion were whether you said something

wrong

or

unsupported

; because of the caveats, you did not. But what we're trying to determine is whether you said something

dangerous

.

Asking everybody else if something's scummy so, if anyone (like Joe-average) says "maybe, yeah", you can later say "Um, I think I agree with Joe-average that Adele was scummy" = scummy.

I can see how that might be a possible (rather transparent) scum tactic. I don't think it's something you can always avoid as town, though; sometimes you're not sure whether something is a scum tell, but you think it could be important.

"Look at me, I'm the only one who cares about the game, look how many posts I've entered (bickering off-topic), follow me in bandwagoning this guy cause what else are you gonna do?"

I'll do this.

Vote: Fiasco

This comes across to me as malice caused by me having annoyed you somehow, which you then didn't separate 100% from your judgment of my alignment. At the time, there was disagreement over whether to play the subgame at all; this seemed to me like the most important issue at that moment, some people were ignoring it, and I wanted to hear their opinion. The subtext you put in quotes isn't really there, in my opinion, and if there wouldn't be that scummy.

The "off-topic" remark annoyed me, to be honest. Most of my comments have been about the usual mafia topics of who is scummy, what are good strategies to play the game, and the like. I think you may be using an unusual definition of "off-topic".

You yourself agreed that we should have threatened someone with lynch by Wednesday. I thought Max was suspicious because the earlier comment about me causing the reroll could point to him having discussed the roleblocker issue as scum, and he has refused (and continues to refuse) to give us any other explanation for the comment.

Then you voted me, without explaining why the couple of "things that scum might do" in my posts outweighed the evidence against other people. I've probably been posting too much (especially in this one); post count is not evidence of good alignment, but the more posts, the more scum tells you can find, and you should take care to correct for this. Not that a full explanation is always needed, mind you; but this vote on top of the inertia from Max's random vote is probably the one leading to my lynch.

God, yes, how embarrassing: an info-free short-deadline day-1 lynch that doesn't have a perfect justification behind it. Boy will my face be red if Fiasco's innocent!

I would say "a weak attempt at justification", but we can disagree on that. I don't think "short-deadline" should be an excuse; to my mind, the point of a speed game is that you play faster, not that you go on (much) less information. On "info-free": if we'd planned ahead more, we might have had more info from claims, might have used the standard push people to claim strategy, etc.

Last post on the subgame, probably. There's probably no point in discussing it, but I wanted this off my mind.

[Fiasco]

What galls me a bit about being suspected in the metagame is -- I started out asking about metagame strategies, then everyone said let's just play the subgame before thinking about that stuff, so I went along with them and just played the subgame, and then Pooky attacked me basically for just playing the subgame. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Pooky.)

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

That's exactly correct Fiasco. I think if you really cared about winning the metagame, you wouldn't have been so easily brushed off into focusing on the subgame instead.

I think you talking about metastrategies is kind of you trying to look metatown because of how easily you were talked into going along with them into playing the subgame.

I think if you really were thinking about metagame strategy, you would've realized that the subgame does not actually matter except for determining who is up for lynch in the metagame and thus its very difficult for me to imagine you being talked into going along and just playing the subgame so easily.

IMO the subgame really is just a distraction because if you think about it, the goals of Mafia in the Subgame is the SAME as the goal of Town in the subgame, so I don't see how we could use subgame behavior the determine metagame alignment, which ultimately is our goal.

[Fiasco]

Mmm, I suppose that's a point. Not sure it incriminates me more than those who never considered metagaming in the first place.

I think you're overstating the uselessness of the subgame somewhat. As I did say early on:

A metatownie who is subscum knows at least one of the subscum is a metatownie. That gives him an incentive to play for a subscum win. A metatownie who is subtown knows at least one of the subtown is a metatownie. That gives him an incentive to play for a subtown win.

Until we develop metagame suspicions, we should play just as if we were playing a typical mafia game.

Or in other words, putting yourself up for lynch is self-destructive behavior.

What I didn't realize until your comments is that this doesn't apply to schemes where you decide on the metalynchees during the subgame, then force the side that they are on to lose the game. To do this you need to agree in advance to punish non-losers; if I'm subscum and I win the game instead of coming out, you have to hope that the next time I'm on the losing side, the town is still willing to metalynch me for it. If you see what I mean.

As I said earlier:

How would you handle it if scum just refused to give themselves away? We have to vote off two players -- how do we choose them, especially considering we can't eliminate two that are on different teams? Will the possibility of a serial killer screw things up?

There's also the fun factor to consider; most of us did sign up expecting to play subgames, and I'm not sure even I am enough of a "play to win" fundamentalist to want to skip these altogether.

[kabenon007]

Take a close look at this post...

I think you talking about metastrategies is kind of you trying to look metatown because of how easily you were talked into going along with

THEM

into playing the subgame.

I highlighted and capitalized the important part. Pooky here is talking about Fiasco's going along with the metatownie idea of playing the subgame, but instead of using "we," which would include him with the metatownies, he uses "them," and so does not include himself in the metatownie ranks. If possible, Pooky will be getting my meta vote.

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

The them in that sentence is referring to the people that Fiasco said told him to play subgames and forget about the metagame.

I am not part of "them" because I did not tell him to do this.

As a rebuttal to your earlier point, the same can be said of a MetaScum who is Subscum or Subtown.

My point that any player would play for their side in the subgame regardless of meta-alignment still stands, which is why I believe subgames are useless for actually rooting out metascum.

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

and Kabenoon, that's not what that part of the post is saying at all, I'm saying that Fiasco is trying to look like he is "metatown" by talking ABOUT metastrategies, then later he claims he is PERSUADED by "everyone" to just play the subgame, I haven't included myself in "them" because I did not persuade him to just play the subgame.

[Adele]

If only one thing is clear, it's that this subgame requires a more confrontational style. I know this post is unlike me, but I think it's necessary to be a bit shoutier.

I don't understand why you said this. I think what's necessary (at least

now

) is exactly the opposite -- let's make a point of de-escalating the sarcasm and discussing constructively.

Because it's a paced game and sometimes the reflective style that I gerenrally prefer takes too long.

"Look at me, I'm the only one who cares about the game, look how many posts I've entered (bickering off-topic), follow me in bandwagoning this guy cause what else are you gonna do?"

I'll do this.

Vote: Fiasco

This comes across to me as malice caused by me having annoyed you somehow, which you then didn't separate 100% from your judgment of my alignment. At the time, there was disagreement over whether to play the subgame at all; this seemed to me like the most important issue at that moment, some people were ignoring it, and I wanted to hear their opinion. The subtext you put in quotes isn't really there, in my opinion, and if there wouldn't be that scummy.

That's the subtext that I saw there, and I still think it was there. You may not like the tone (regarding the o/t mention, most of your more recent votes had not been about the subgame), but it was not malicious. Perhaps a little sarcastic, maybe even rude - and if so, I am sorry - but this is not a knee-jerk out of annoyance.

You yourself agreed that we should have threatened someone with lynch by Wednesday. I thought Max was suspicious because the earlier comment about me causing the reroll could point to him having discussed the roleblocker issue as scum, and he has refused (and continues to refuse) to give us any other explanation for the comment.

I agreed we should have someone at Claim Or Die by Wednesday; however one or two players can't manufacture that between themselves so it was a statement of an ideal - and I certainly don't think it's worth pushing the wrong person to that point just to fit that schedule.

Then you voted me, without explaining why the couple of "things that scum might do" in my posts outweighed the evidence against other people.

I found you scummiest and posted why. You want me to explain exactly

why

I find you scummier than Max? I don't have hours to spend each day on this game, you know; the short deadlines limit how much I can post.

God, yes, how embarrassing: an info-free short-deadline day-1 lynch that doesn't have a perfect justification behind it. Boy will my face be red if Fiasco's innocent!

I would say "a weak attempt at justification", but we can disagree on that. I don't think "short-deadline" should be an excuse; to my mind, the point of a speed game is that you play faster, not that you go on (much) less information. On "info-free": if we'd planned ahead more, we might have had more info from claims, might have used the standard push people to claim strategy, etc.

[/quote]by playing faster, you

do

have less info to go on; there's less time for revelations, discussions, analysis. 2 people on the other side of a clock can only back-and-forth 7 times in a week. That's just the nature of it. My point here was simple: that your suggestion that we should be embarrased for this course of action is unfair, and assumes too much. It's D1, for heavens' sake. There's a big bundle of limiting factors forcing the play to be near-random. You've been somewhat scummy, which happens to be (IMO) the best we've got. Suck it up: you'll only die in the subgame (assuming you even get lynched).

[mith]

Final Vote Count:

Fiasco: 4 (Adele, Max, PookyTheMagicalBear, WaterboyWaldo)
Sammich: 2 (ryan, SomeStrangeSimenon)
WaterboyWaldo: 2 (kabenon007, Xdaamno)
Max: 1 (Fiasco)
PookyTheMagicalBear: 1 (Thorned Rose)

[mith]

(Scene to be added)

---

No one has been lynched. It is Night 2, deadline is 48 hours from this post.

[mith]

(Scene to be added)

---

No one has been killed. It is Day 2. 6 to lynch, deadline is one week from this post.

[Xdaamno]

Heh. Effectively an extended deadline, with extra results for cops and the like.

[WaterboyWaldo]

Great. Absolutely nothing interesting happened.

vote: Fiasco

[SomeStrangeSimenon]

Agreed.

Can I please have a summary of the game-theory-esque discussion a few pages back? It doesn't seem to make much sense to me...

Love, Flea...

[SomeStrangeSimenon]

EDWOP: Not sure why I put the word "seem" in there, ignore it plx.

[Fiasco]

Wonder if some of the scum are (subtly) trying to lose on purpose.