US Election 08 Mafia(Someone has won, has America lost?)

[Vi]

Also, do we know who Stephen Colbert is, or does only one person still?

I think I know, but I don't see how it's relevant.

Yup, looking at a mod's old set up's is in no way relevant.

Hey, I said "I don't see how", not "it isn't"

That doesn't make my comment any less relevant. At all.

'Didn't say it wasn't. Learning has taken place.

[Fritzler]

Also, do we know who Stephen Colbert is, or does only one person still?

I think I know, but I don't see how it's relevant.

Yup, looking at a mod's old set up's is in no way relevant.

Hey, I said "I don't see how", not "it isn't"

That doesn't make my comment any less relevant. At all.

'Didn't say it wasn't. Learning has taken place.

Then whats the point of the fucking sass and rolled eye simile if you were learning?

[magnus_orion]

You effectively stated a belief in multiple scum groups, which is scummy.

Maybe I have missed it, but how is it scummy? He said there are probably two scheming election parties. I don't agree that there are reasonable grounds for such a belief, but I don't think it's scummy.

Alright, lets start out here.
There are no reasonable grounds for such a beleif as town.
However, if we assume max reasonable,
the possiblity exists for reasonable grounds for such a belief as scum (depending on wording of role pm, ect.).
Thus it is scummy to presume, with no evidence to support it, that there are more than one scum group.

Thus, we assume all players are reasonable, and because the belief is unreasonable from town perspective, but possibly reasonable from scum perspective, then it is more likely the player is scum then it is that the player is unreasonable.

[Idiotking]

Yos, why are you giving in to mass un-bandwagoning?

unvote

(just in case I already had a vote on someone)

and

Vote Max

This statement at the top was made a while ago, but it bothers me on some level. Is maintaining a bandwagon a good thing when there are other targets? And is it ever smart to ask why someone unvoted on a bandwagon?

[Idiotking]

Or rather, let me rephrase that last part; if you know that the person is unvoting because of new info/because he wants to have time for questions to be answered/may not have his vote being counted, why do you still ask?

[EmpTyger]

<snip>
Also how in the world are you going to argue that I am more unhelpful than any lurkers we have right now?

This, in a nutshell, was the point I was trying (unsuccessfully) to make here:

<snip>And what about not voting without reasoning?

Huh? Who are you referring to? I'm reasonably certain that I'm voting Max right now, and I remember posting some reasoning a page or two ago.

To answer your question, I don't particularly care for holding your vote on D1, but I've seen many players who like to play conservatively and sit on their votes for a long period of time. Again, I don't agree with it, and I try not to do it, but I don't find ti to be a scumtell.
<snip>

Fritzler’s play, while unconventional, is not unhelpful. Fritzler is actively trying to find mafia. The town can analyze who he attacks, who he ignores. Whereas with Natirasha- he wasn’t trying to find mafia. There was nothing that can later be analyzed. There was nothing that helped the town. Natirasha’s play and Fritzler’s play are vastly different.

---

charter:
<snark>Of course you consider “anti-townness” to be such a poor reason to go after someone. You want protown people to lynch so you can “gain information”.</snark>

If someone says that they buy your defense, I might feel like rebutting it.

---

ortolan:

are you saying I was substantially less active in this game than I was in all my other games? You'll need to give me evidence for this as I have no idea whether it is true or not.
<snip>

Firstly, I don’t need to give *you* evidence. Maybe those townspeople too lazy to hit the “find recent posts by” button. For them:
You posted here on Sun 1/4. Your next post came on 1/10, only when you got modprodded. In between, you posted
11 times in Mini 701
4 times in Mini 704
6 times in Mini 711
3 times in Mini 717
2 times in Mini 724
5 times in Open 105
1 time in Mafia Discussion
1 time in General Discussion
2 times in WSOGMM
1 time in RealTime Mafia
6 times in Prisoner’s Dilemma
and /ined for a new game.

Now, would like to revise your defense, or is it merely
(1) denial
(2)

avoiding

procrastinating posting isn’t suspicious?

---

Vi:

<snip>
I think zwetschenwasser has been very scummy, but at the same time suspect this is at least partly based on being accustomed to how Mafia is played on another site. I call lynchalicious.
<snip>

What does this mean?

Um... what

could

it mean? It seems self-explanatory.
<snip>

“I think zwet is scummy but I don’t think he’s scummy so I think he should be lynched.”

No, when your “judgment” is to give zwet the benefit of the doubt and offer him an explanation for his play, although you think the explanation is still suspicious, but not enough to mention it when someone else does it- no, I don’t think your opinion regarding zwet is anywhere near “self-explanatory”. Why don’t you try again.

---

Kairyuu:

<snip>
@Emptyger:

Um, I wasn’t the one making automatic assumptions about motivations. Vi was. What was the “clear indication” that zwet was innocently not reading the thread, rather than trying to ignoring his attackers?

I'm not talking about zwet. I'm talking about Badguy. That question was from before my V/LA last week. I noticed it on a quick reread.

The "clear indication" was that he claimed after several people had opposed the nameclaim, and only about 2 had supported it. Assuming mental competency, it points to him not reading, or not reading thoroughly.
<snip>

(Ah, because of the similar discussion with Vi, didn’t catch that you were talking about Badguy.)

Take an extreme case. Player X is at lynch-1; player Y speedlynches X. One doesn’t assume that, since they apparently didn’t realize that their vote would be the lynching vote, Y must have simply misread the thread. At the very least, one must consider Y’s action to be suspicious.

---

Vollkan:

<snip>
As with any bandwagon, I rest on the hope that my arguments will be strong enough to persuade people. I don't think there is a more optimal method.

If that is true, then why gather such specific evidence about posters, but not lurkers?

And what exactly are you trying to do in debating claiming strategy with Badguy?

He said that it would be more likely scum would claim a big name. I don't agree and, since I don't think think it helps town to have people approaching claims from a position which, in my opinion, is erroneous, I argued against his view.

So you thought there was such a good chance of someone agreeing with Badguy (despite I don’t believe anyone showing any sign of agreeing with him, and on the contrary, many people expressing the opinion that Badguy suspicious for it) that it was necessary to tell mafia about which fakeclaims were or weren’t likely to be believed?

---

IK:
What do you think of charter’s attack on me, then, for unvoting Natirasha bandwagon?

[vollkan]

<snip>
As with any bandwagon, I rest on the hope that my arguments will be strong enough to persuade people. I don't think there is a more optimal method.

If that is true, then why gather such specific evidence about posters, but not lurkers?

You asked me how I expect a wagon to form on a lurker. As I just said, I'd hope my arguments would be enough to persaude people, and that's the best I can do. I failed to convince people in Death Note, but I can't see anything better than what I did there.

Almost by definition, I cannot gather information on a person who isn't posting.However, in a Death Note scenario, I would make the argument that the lurker uncertainty needed to be considered. By gathering specific evidence on posters, I am able to weigh up their behavioural scumminess against the uncertainty surrounding lurkers (and Death Note is the only time I can think of where I have swung in favour of the lurker lynch)

He said that it would be more likely scum would claim a big name. I don't agree and, since I don't think think it helps town to have people approaching claims from a position which, in my opinion, is erroneous, I argued against his view.

So you thought there was such a good chance of someone agreeing with Badguy (despite I don’t believe anyone showing any sign of agreeing with him, and on the contrary, many people expressing the opinion that Badguy suspicious for it) that it was necessary to tell mafia about which fakeclaims were or weren’t likely to be believed?

No.

As I just said, it doesn't help town to have bad ideas floating around. BG was attacking Zwet's claim based on the idea that scum would claim big names. I asked him why he felt that way; he responded and I gave my view. I can see the angle of your questioning - why would I risk giving scum advice - but I think there's much more benefit in just dealing with the view and trying to work out how viable it is. Needless to say, BG hasn't be able to defend that point.

[Stephen Colbert]

I don't feel like doing flavor for this.

Sotty7 replaces Natirasha.

Boarder_Control, Lindisfarne, and pacmansomenumbersafterhisname are in the process of being replaced. If they post before I find a replacement, great.

Depending on how long it takes to find replacements, I may push deadline back a day or two.

[Sotty7]

Hi.

Reading, catching up... all that jazz

[zwetschenwasser]

In the interest of pressuring charter into saying something useful and seeing if Fritzler's "tactic" works,

Vote: Charter

. I don't find the Max wagon well founded. Does anyone have any more reasons why Max is scummy besides the two Mafia faction things and the IK thing which could have just been a not-careful-enough read?

[zwetschenwasser]

If charter finds Emptyger so suspicious, why does he vote for Max instead for just a single joke post?

[charter]

Kairyuu is odd. Pretty big overreaction to nothing in 412. Plus I seem to remember something early in the game that seemed fishy with him.

418- Vollkan, I think it's scummy because my PM doesn't lead me to believe something like that. It almost seems as if Max knows that there are two scum groups, one is Democrats, one is Republicans, or something like that. This would raise the question of what makes him think this.

<snark>Of course you consider “anti-townness” to be such a poor reason to go after someone. You want protown people to lynch so you can “gain information”.</snark>

Townies act antitown all the time. In fact, Nat does it every single game he's in, yet I've never been in a game he was scum. Therefore, I don't think that going after someone acting antitown is useful. I think going after people who are scummy (Max right now) is useful.

Welcome sotty!

434- You think I haven't said anything useful?
435- I find Max more suspicious. Why are you defending Max? I listed many reasons for finding Max suspicious, none of them were a "single joke post"

However, my wagon is a good one, lots of space on it. Comfy chairs, good company. I think I know why Zwet picked it.

[Kairyuu]

@Emp:

Fritzler’s play, while unconventional, is not unhelpful. Fritzler is actively trying to find mafia. The town can analyze who he attacks, who he ignores. Whereas with Natirasha- he wasn’t trying to find mafia. There was nothing that can later be analyzed. There was nothing that helped the town. Natirasha’s play and Fritzler’s play are vastly different

Alrighty. I cannot see how the post of mine you quoted correlates in any way to the response, but whatever. I'm not disagreeing with you, since I mentioned to Fritzler that after finding the Glork explanation and reading yos2's explanation I changed my opinion on the matter.

Take an extreme case. Player X is at lynch-1; player Y speedlynches X. One doesn’t assume that, since they apparently didn’t realize that their vote would be the lynching vote, Y must have simply misread the thread. At the very least, one must consider Y’s action to be suspicious.

Your example is completely true. However, as far as I can remember, Badguy has not denied failing to read the thread. I would like to hear from him before making any further comments on this, since his response is quite important right now.

Besides, the extreme case does not apply here. There is no anti-town consequence for his action that we can determine yet. If we find later that his claim helped the scum, then we assume he did it purposefully to advance the goals of his faction.

@Zwet: Well, there could be the repeated instances of IIoA, and then the continuation of this behavior when questioned about it.

@charter:

Kairyuu is odd. Pretty big overreaction to nothing in 412. Plus I seem to remember something early in the game that seemed fishy with him.

Really? 412 was an overreaction? I saw a player I had never seen before (heard of him, but never seen his style), and I saw him perform an action that looked anti-town. When I questioned it I was told "That's just the way he plays. If he's town then we're in good shape." I dunno about you, but when I see that kind of response, I get more than a little irritated, because it implies that these people are putting their faith in someone on the assumption that they are not mafia trying to screw us over.

Oh yeah, and the thing from earlier was a similar "overreaction" to a post by Spambot, when I chose to take the post at face value instead of assuming he was joking.

[Fritzler]

Kairyuu is odd. Pretty big overreaction to nothing in 412. Plus I seem to remember something early in the game that seemed fishy with him.

418- Vollkan, I think it's scummy because my PM doesn't lead me to believe something like that. It almost seems as if Max knows that there are two scum groups, one is Democrats, one is Republicans, or something like that. This would raise the question of what makes him think this.

<snark>Of course you consider “anti-townness” to be such a poor reason to go after someone. You want protown people to lynch so you can “gain information”.</snark>

Townies act antitown all the time. In fact, Nat does it every single game he's in, yet I've never been in a game he was scum. Therefore, I don't think that going after someone acting antitown is useful. I think going after people who are scummy (Max right now) is useful.

Welcome sotty!

434- You think I haven't said anything useful?
435- I find Max more suspicious. Why are you defending Max? I listed many reasons for finding Max suspicious, none of them were a "single joke post"

However, my wagon is a good one, lots of space on it. Comfy chairs, good company. I think I know why Zwet picked it.

wow, bud, reaching much?

I'll be happy when the town wises up and lynches you.

[zwetschenwasser]

@charter: Why, then, did I pick your wagon? I think that anyone would consider it a pretty good possibility to have two factions, thanks to the thematicness of this game. And good company? I myself am suspicious of Fritzler, since I'm not used to playing with him (or her, I don't really know). And you didn't answer my question as to why not vote for Emptyger.

[charter]

wow, bud, reaching much?

I'll be happy when the town wises up and lynches you.

What?

@zwet, I'm more suspicious of Max, I think that's a good enough reason to be voting him over Emp.

[charter]

Really? 412 was an overreaction? I saw a player I had never seen before (heard of him, but never seen his style), and I saw him perform an action that looked anti-town. When I questioned it I was told "That's just the way he plays. If he's town then we're in good shape." I dunno about you, but when I see that kind of response, I get more than a little irritated, because it implies that these people are putting their faith in someone on the assumption that they are not mafia trying to screw us over.

I'd say it's an overreaction. Any more than a "that's nice" I think would be.

[Kairyuu]

Ok. So if you had never played with Nat before, and he claimed SK on a D2 you would just say "that's nice" when someone said he does it all the time?

[charter]

Ok. So if you had never played with Nat before, and he claimed SK on a D2 you would just say "that's nice" when someone said he does it all the time?

Good point. But I still feel these situations are different. One arbitrary vote doesn't mean anything, no need to even pay attention to it. In a large, five arbitrary votes (or whatever I'm at) doesn't mean a whole lot too when only one (Emptygers) has any backing.

[Kairyuu]

@charter: The initial reaction from me was simply to demand an explanation for the vote and ask if this was common practice for him. What you are calling an overreaction is me getting irritated that people apparently turn into sheep in the presence of Fritzler. I don't think that my reaction was unwarranted or unreasonable at the time and given the information I had about him, but meh, if you still find it scummy, then I can't really argue with it.

[charter]

Eh, less scummy after this exchange.

[Yosarian2]

Really? 412 was an overreaction? I saw a player I had never seen before (heard of him, but never seen his style), and I saw him perform an action that looked anti-town. When I questioned it I was told "That's just the way he plays. If he's town then we're in good shape."

That's really not what I said, you know.

[Kairyuu]

Aye. But that is how I interpreted it the first time I read it. Once you explained further I figured out what you were trying to say, and changed my stance on the matter.

[Sotty7]

Okay I'm up to date now. Initial thoughts...

At this point I just feel that charter v Emp is based mostly around game theory and how they differ from each other. Charter's post 380 explains his position pretty well in my eyes and although I don't agree that Emp voted for Nat and Zwet for the same reasons, I do agree how dropping one bandwagon completely and going for another is something of note.

The last couple of posts from vollkan have been all about general game strategy (his points system + name claims) nothing much in the ways of actually playing this game. Making it hard for me to get any kind of read on him. I also noted that he hasn't voted once all game.

Any reasons for this vollkan? No one standing out to you at all?

Kairyuu is very interesting to me at this point. At the start of the game he was a big supporter of vigging Nat (now me) mainly because of his SK claim. Understandable I think... He talks about his experience with Nat and how it's not unreasonable to think that he could be lying. He also talks about how vigging the anti town Nat is probably the best play for the town. What I found striking was his reaction to Fritz and his unsubstantiated hate towards him.

@Fritzler:

You and charter living is not acceptable.

Oh? Are we playing "Let's be Totally Useless" now? Here I thought we were playing Mafia. Alright then. Post a reason for your vote or you get mine. I do not deal well with people who deliberately act unhelpful.

@all: Does Fritzler have a Nat-esque meta? I generally assume that someone is going to play properly unless I know in advance that they won't, so I would like to know if we just picked up another dead weight.

He threatens Fritz with a vote and then asks if Fritz and Nat play alike. This doesn't really line up with how he approached and dealt with the anti town Nat. the only change is that Fritz guns for him, whereas Nat did not.

Kairyuu why the initial overt hostility? It really feels like an over reaction to me and with how you later reacted back after basically being told Fritz is a good player was very interesting to see. I see you tried right away to group the two and yet also tried to deal with them both in very different ways.

FOS: Kairyuu

Last but not least.... Max. Nothing you have done so far in the game has been helpful. You latched onto Yosarian for reasons I don't clearly understand and which you have tried to pass off as gut. I'm not sure if the talk about two possible scum groups is telling or not, especially when you expressed doubt about Zwet's claim. Specifically the name claim and doubting the likely hood of it being in the game along the lines of him being a “reporter” Still I really don't like how you just happily gave up casing after Yosarian when Fritzler entered the game and asked you to vote for charter. Especially since I don't see the case against him at all.

Vote: Max

That puts him at 6 I believe, but a vote count would be awesome

[EmpTyger]

Just a warning- I have a lot of 12+ hour days this week, so my available mafia time is going to be less, and a reread is essentially not going to happen.

Also, the case against charter is more than "because Fritzler said so".

---

vollkan:

<snip>
You asked me how I expect a wagon to form on a lurker. As I just said, I'd hope my arguments would be enough to persaude people, and that's the best I can do. I failed to convince people in Death Note, but I can't see anything better than what I did there.
<snip>

For starters, how about not confidently dismissing the criticism that your play actually doesn't account for lurking mafia?

---

Kairyuu:
Okay, I suppose, since you were neutral on the nameclaiming.

---

Sotty:
Good observation on Kairyuu.

---

charter:

<snip>
@zwet, I'm more suspicious of Max, I think that's a good enough reason to be voting him over Emp.

<snark>Giving up on me so easily and switching to Max for the same reason? OMG FoS: charter</snark>