Newbie 1768: Party Mafia - Game over!

[Agent Sparkles]

Code: Select all

[unvote][/unvote] or [uv][/uv]

Will come out as:
UNVOTE:

Thanks.

I have no idea why I'm gutreading toejam as scum, but it came with his first two posts, #7 & #9.

This is scummier than anything toejam has said. If you seriously scumread someone, then there has to be a reason behind it, however small it might be. Why should your initial read have any credibility if you can't tell us why you have it?

Now I've realized there may be a terminology issue here. Are you using "dislike" as equivalent to "read as scum"?

Probably. That's the way most people seem to use it here.

I'm guessing that question is just for RVS purposes, but if you actually want it answered, I'm just reminding the inactive players so that they don't get kicked from the game. And for obvious reasons, it's helpful to have as many active players as possible.

But why do you think bulba/kento would need to see your post to remember that they have to confirm? If they're reading this thread, they would already know they need to confirm and participate, no?

I was hoping that this was like some other forums, where doing @player would alert them.

[SirCakez]

Titus replaces Bulbazoor! Please welcome her.

[Agent Sparkles]

There is one issue that I have to side with nancy on, and this is mostly directed at JaeReed and GuiltyLion.

There's nothing wrong with trying to break apart townreads, especially weak ones. If you stay quiet when people are gaining unnecessary trust, then what if one of them is mafia? You're just making it easier for them to stay hidden. Even if the people in question are town, what about the people townreading them? If you point out the flaws in their arguments, whether they're scumreading or townreading, you can force them to explain themselves and draw attention to possible fake reads.

I'm not saying that putting scumreads under scrutiny is less important, but it's a two-way road. I'm surprised that this is even a subject for debate.

Welcome, Titus.

[nancy]

Welcome, Titus!

Awesome, thanks for that feedback Lion.

Probably. That's the way most people seem to use it here.

My question was directed towards Jae, thank you though.

[Titus]

Hi there. I might have stalked this game once I saw who the IC was.

Regardless of their alignment, you have a good IC here. I have a different perspective than most. My job as an SE is to supplement them teaching you how to play and show alternative playstyles.

[Titus]

There is one issue that I have to side with nancy on, and this is mostly directed at JaeReed and GuiltyLion.

There's nothing wrong with trying to break apart townreads, especially weak ones. If you stay quiet when people are gaining unnecessary trust, then what if one of them is mafia? You're just making it easier for them to stay hidden. Even if the people in question are town, what about the people townreading them? If you point out the flaws in their arguments, whether they're scumreading or townreading, you can force them to explain themselves and draw attention to possible fake reads.

I'm not saying that putting scumreads under scrutiny is less important, but it's a two-way road. I'm surprised that this is even a subject for debate.

Welcome, Titus.

This is something I want to read for context.

[Titus]

Jae, I honestly can't work that out myself. Unless that's your way of stirring up conversation and starting the hunt, which I'm going to read you as Towny for.

Not a particularly large fan of this.

Not following someone's reads and proceeding to ascribe town motivation is a little sketchy.

[Titus]

In general, I don't like unexplained TRs Sparkles. Yet, there are players who do that. Naked reads can be playstyle, crumbs, confidence or any number of things. Pressing to understand is ok, but don't press to demolish.

[SirCakez]

bowdown replaces kentofan! Please welcome them.

[JaeReed]

Which part reads overdefensively? I'm operating under the assumption that we should try to break down any read, whether town, scum, or null, and that if a read is good it'll stand up to scrutiny by others. Given those two assumptions, am not sure I understand why you'd dislike an attempt to dissect reads and provide discussion material, unless you thought my attempt was ill-reasoned, in which case I'd be interested to hear about which parts were ill-reasoned.

I have no idea why I'm gutreading toejam as scum, but it came with his first two posts, #7 & #9.

Now I've realized there may be a terminology issue here. Are you using "dislike" as equivalent to "read as scum"?

My experience with forum mafia - I've modded 1 mafia and participated in 1 mafia on another non-mafia forum (this activity is ongoing). I've also read Vi's Jailbreak Mini and a small percentage of the material on mafiascum wiki, but neither of those would really count as "experience". Non-forum mafia - I played the party game as a child, and I joined up on EM 2-3 months ago. (I recognize kentofan from there, heh.)

The assumption that I was talking about you when mentioning forced jokes and rush to explain it came across as overdefensive.

Generally questioning about reads is good, but specifically aiming to break them down unless you believe the read is wrong tends to be viewed as scummy, as scum need mislynches on town in order to win the game, so the less town are townreading each other the better for them. I believe both Titus and GL explained this decently, though. What you're aiming to do by questioning someone's reads is to examine their thought process to see if you believe that person is trying to genuinely gamesolve, or trying to mislead town with their read.

You should take a look at those posts again and try to find what you dislike about them. It's hard to tell whether your read is genuine or not without having something backing it up, even if it's just "this post feels forced to me" or such.

Yeah, I use the terms interchangeably at times. That doesn't mean that all people do, though. I use "dislike" as a general "this pings me but I'm not sure it's something yet".

[JaeReed]

nancy, if you have been gut scumreading tojam since his early posts why is your vote parked on me instead?

[bowdown]

Good morning everyone! First game of mafia ever, though I used to play werewolf on a different forum like 5 years ago. Getting caught up now but let's start with a

vote toejam

because gross.

[bowdown]

Jae, I honestly can't work that out myself. Unless that's your way of stirring up conversation and starting the hunt, which I'm going to read you as Towny for.

This doesn't really resonate with me. Stirring up discussion alone is something that anyone can easily do, and in my opinion, not a very good basis for reads. JaeReed also earned some townie points with me for that post, but it's because of the way he purposely didn't explain himself and left it up to everyone else to think about, which seems like a genuine town strategy. I do think it's possible that you were thinking along these lines and just weren't as specific about it.

Sure, when we get to day 3 and page 60, the fact that someone "stirred up discussion" on the second page shouldn't impact your read in a player. Page 2 though, absolutely it can, especially when all the reads are going to be so nebulous.

I'm curious why you decided to give tojam an out on his thinking. Why not instead simply ask "what were you thinking?" and evaluate the response?

[bowdown]

I want to talk about this. What do you mean by "good" read - a read that is accurate or a read that is justified? In my experience, scum like to make everyone's reads about logic and evidence, because those things are easier to twist or poke holes at. If a player happens to accurately (but perhaps illogically) townread a townie, there isn't a pro-town benefit to breaking down that read unless it is actively helping sort the player who gave the townread. Whereas it helps scum to jump in and weaken townreads, as it keeps the lynchpool wider.

Also, because scum already know who is town, when asked about their fake townreads they can usually explain them convincingly. Scumreads are harder to fake.

IMO the most effective townplay is scrutinizing and justifying scumreads, not townreads

I gotta disagree with this too. Both reads are valuable justifying and scrutinizing. Your entire post assumes that a town is illogically, accurately reading a town as town. The problem comes when a town inaccurately, illogically reads a mafia as town - those reads have to be looked at as well otherwise the mafia can just skate by, not killing the townies that read them well.

[bowdown]

Jae, I honestly can't work that out myself. Unless that's your way of stirring up conversation and starting the hunt, which I'm going to read you as Towny for.

Not a particularly large fan of this.

Not following someone's reads and proceeding to ascribe town motivation is a little sketchy.

In general, I don't like unexplained TRs Sparkles. Yet, there are players who do that. Naked reads can be playstyle, crumbs, confidence or any number of things. Pressing to understand is ok, but don't press to demolish.

I agree with Titus on both of these, don't think it's alignment indicative though

[bowdown]

A few more random thoughts that don't deserve their own post:

- Nancy, I too want an answer to Jae's question "what pinged you about tojam's initial posts"

- Jae, how concerned are you with Nancy's vote parked on you?

- GuiltyLion, I'd love to hear more thoughts about this game specifically other than "sparkles why are you acting like a mod?"

- Finally, I'm pinged by TriangleShark's entrance - the add on "Because everyone deserves some love" feels forced.

[Titus]

Good morning everyone! First game of mafia ever, though I used to play werewolf on a different forum like 5 years ago. Getting caught up now but let's start with a

vote toejam

because gross.

Mafia and werewolf are the same game, different flavor.

[nancy]

Welcome, bowdown!

Mmmm super interesting, I'm loving this already.

@Jae Thanks for clearing that word usage up. My vote was RNG. Votes are meaningless at this point, no?

@Jae & bowdown, I've got nothing on that gutread right now, sorry to disappoint.

[EccentricLemon]

Most of the people in this game are newbies, and I think some of you are reading too far into everything. Then again, I tend to be the kind that likes to wait a while before making any decisions and am a newbie myself.

I don't think nancy is consciously attempting to prove her innocence and at this point, I lean toward the fact that she's just more outspoken and trying to incite conversation. Personally, I don't think what she's said is enough to incriminate her.
However, at this stage of the game, everyone is suspicious and outspoken people tend to draw more suspicion. Which is to say while I don't believe nancy is attempting to divert attention, I'm not completely certain of her innocence as well.

I voted for GuiltyLion hoping to receive some information from him or other players discussing him but I'm a little disappointed that there isn't a lot of debate going on about him. Also as soon as people started voting for him, he hasn't posted much. Which seems a little shifty to me, like he's lying low and letting it blow over. I mean, I don't know his personal life or playing style so I might be wrong.

The fact that Jae and AgentSparkles haven't voted against nancy and are trying to get information instead of straight up voting for her kind of tips me toward assuming they are probably town. However, Jae is a seasoned player and that makes me trust them less.

Again, this is only my speculation from what I've seen.

[EccentricLemon]

Also, hey Titus.

[EccentricLemon]

Also hello bowdown.

[bowdown]

VOTE: EccentricLemon

I voted for GuiltyLion hoping to receive some information from him or other players discussing him but I'm a little disappointed that there isn't a lot of debate going on about him. Also as soon as people started voting for him, he hasn't posted much.

In what world did you vote for him to receive some information from him/others discussing him? It was halfway through the first page and the other two votes on him were random. There wasn't any serious discussion of anyone at that point.

He also has had a couple of posts (in fact his only posts) are after he got his three votes. I'd like some more posts out of him too but I'm not that concerned that barely into D1 he hasn't posted much.

This is both really lazy "hunting" and not at all what actually happened.

[EccentricLemon]

If a person gets voted up, it's more likely people are going to discuss them. My vote wasn't a hammer or anything. That was my logic on what would happen. But since that didn't happen and doesn't seem like it's going to happen, UNVOTE: GuiltyLion. I was just stating my purpose and my suspicions so that people can use them to draw conclusions, I'm not actually accusing anyone.

[GuiltyLion]

I was hoping that this was like some other forums, where doing @player would alert them.

huh, I see. this actually feels genuine

UNVOTE:

on the other hand, this does not:

I voted for GuiltyLion hoping to receive some information from him or other players discussing him but I'm a little disappointed that there isn't a lot of debate going on about him. Also as soon as people started voting for him, he hasn't posted much. Which seems a little shifty to me, like he's lying low and letting it blow over. I mean, I don't know his personal life or playing style so I might be wrong.

I agree with everything bowdown said in 71, and I'd also like to point out that Agent Sparkles did attempt to discuss it:

I still stand by my vote since I have not received any new information about GuiltyLion and no other posts have convinced me about the scumminess of any other player.

Are you saying that GuiltyLion is the only scummy one, or that no one is scummy so far? It could be taken either way.

Missing this question isn't scummy in itself, but missing this question and then complaining that your vote did not generate discussion is scummy. I think a townie who thought I was a good vote and was genuinely looking for reactions to his vote would have noticed and responded to this question. Instead, EL's 68 feels like LAMIST and an excuse to scumread me for low activity or not responding to RVS votes on me. Also, the 'hasn't posted much' point is an exaggeration, as the game literally just started.

For the record, I generally work 9-5 PST, I sometimes check mafia during work when I have slow days, but otherwise I'll only be around in the evenings (and maybe occasionally quick morning posts if something stands out to me).

VOTE: EccentricLemon

P-EDIT: also, I was just about to post this when I saw 72 -

@EL

why did you unvote? Did bowdown change your opinion of me?

[EccentricLemon]

Sorry, that's my mistake that I didn't reply to that comment.
I meant that no one was scummy so far. I was interested in where that vote might take the discussion. It didn't reveal that much new info to me, so keeping my vote there wouldn't do much and might have even hurt me down the road.

I meant to add in #68 that I've been pressed for time, so I may not have read each post as carefully as I hoped to.

I said I'm not trying to accuse anyone. I unvoted because there wasn't any reason to keep my vote there. I personally don't see any point to random voting unless it generates discussion, which I understand is why it's encouraged. I can vote and unvote at any time, so unvoting wasn't an issue if I was trying to prove I'm not trying to be accusatory.