Mini 728: Ye Olde Tymes Mafia: GAME OVER

[forbiddanlight]

Yes - and this is important. I've self-voted as a sympathy play before (as town - I was very new) and it worked. It should be understood that self-voting as town is frowned upon in the same way as any other deliberate undermining of the game - it's puncturing the ball when you're losing and don't want to play anymore. Anyone self-votes as town (at a relevant point in the game) and you will attract a LOT of hate.

Of course, there are the few notable exceptions, but those aren't very likely to come up.

[Seol]

So you are already saying some people's meta of self voting is already nullifying it's overall effect since it's basically allowing someone to start doing it and claim it's a defensive strategy. So, you rob them of that and distracting the town by ignoring it?

No. I'm saying that it

is

a defensive strategy, but most people don't realise it. It was always harmful, but the more people use it (and the more it's used by each individual), the less effective it is, as it's only useful when it's viewed as anomalous behaviour.

But if anyone

claimed

to be using it as a defensive strategy, I'd be over them like a ton of bricks.

[vollkan]

There are two elements to it. Firstly, the effect, which is reduced information for the town to act upon later, and secondly the intent, which is divestment of accountability (trying to avoid responsibility for your actions) - one of the strong scum behavioural patterns. If it didn't attract such a predictable response - back before self-voting had really been considered - it would be a good shielding tactic.

On the first element: I don't think it provides "reduced" information, so much as it provides "different" information. A normal random vote can provide information of the sort that FL refers to in her meta example. A self-vote sparks a discussion which provides a different source of information. I don't think either is demonstrably better than the other.

On the second: I don't see how self-voting amounts to a divestment of responsibility. A person is as accountable for a self-vote as if they make a random vote. In fact, with the attention that a self-vote attracts, I would argue that a self-vote actually results in extra accountability in many cases.

The question then, of course, is why anyone would want to establish a meta practice which they acknowledge is harmful to the town? The thing is, I can see why it's beneficial to its user (countered attacks of any sort make it harder to launch additional attacks later - and it's the response to the self-vote, not the vote itself, that ends up being effective), and that's going to be helpful to them in all situations. Town doesn't want to support an easily-adopted individual defensive strategy, but at the same time it's genuinely meaningless in the majority of cases (just because there are good reasons why scum would do it and bad reasons why town would do it doesn't mean it's driven by scum intent). So, the best approach is to neutralise the part of the strategy which has an impact - namely the argument over whether it's scummy or not, by ignoring it and moving onto other matters.

I have a meta practice of self-voting precisely, but I don't think it is at all harmful to the town.

Could you elaborate upon your point about "countered attacks of any sort make it harder to launch additional attacks later", since I am not sure what you mean?

And yes, it is the response and debate that is useful, rather than the actual self-vote, but I don't think that really says anything about the utility of self-voting for town.

Reaction-fishing for demonstrably anti-town behaviour (even if it's demonstrably non-scummy) is, however, a fundamentally flawed approach. Fire attracted from doing something wrong is, relatively speaking, poor fire to analyse - scum and town approach it the same way. Either they know about its meta context, in which case they'll know to ignore it (or make the point about it being anti-town and move on), or they'll be new, and they'll attack what they see as being a valid tell. What you are very likely to get, however, is fire from someone in the game, which is then easily defended and supported by others - and that process of attracting fire is a pre-emptive defence. The tactic has a very definite effect, and it's a different effect to that (I believe) most people think it has.

Well, what I look for is not whether or not people like self-voting, but "how" they respond to it. Newer players will tend to see it as scummier than experienced players will, but that isn't the important thing. My focus is on why people find it scummy, and how they justify themselves.

[MonkeyMan576]

Well, what I look for is not whether or not people like self-voting, but "how" they respond to it. Newer players will tend to see it as scummier than experienced players will, but that isn't the important thing. My focus is on why people find it scummy, and how they justify themselves.

(-) appeal to authority;

The statement you just made seems pretty revealing to me. Pretty much the whole game so far you've been implying that the town should trust you more because your view is the view of experience, and that they should trust other players less because of their inexperience. Experience doesn't your argument any more valid, or make you less likely to be scum.

[MonkeyMan576]

Doesn't make your argument more valid, rather...

[MonkeyMan576]

that's weird, it showed a word as missing when I originally read it, then it was there again. Ignore post 54.

[vollkan]

Not to mention that not liking self voters is a meta, and a null tell.

First, I thought meta didn't inflect your play?

Second, do you mean site wide meta, in which case no, it's not a null tell, it depends on the person

And Third, if you mean personal meta, I suppose I could see that.

Certainly I have a meta, I just meant that it shouldn't be used as a primary method for determining my alignment. Clearly I could use my meta as a way to show that not liking self voters is not a scumtell, but I'd prefer people to look at the logic behind my opinion, my voting history, and things like that. And I'll look at other people's in game behavior first before looking at meta.

I mean, if someone state's in every applicable game they play in that they don't like self voters, then not liking self voters is not a scum tell, because they are saying it weather they are town or scum. I haven't been here long enough to know what the site meta is on self voting, I was referring to self meta.

You're using your meta to defend yourself against any charge that your attitude to self-voting is inherently scummy (which it isn't). You still haven't explained why UA's meta is not equally relevant.

True enough, and most are with most people who do it. I guess you could trip up new people to the site.

Obviously, newer people are more likely, but they by no means exclusively find self-voting scummy.

But are they scum?

No. Again, my focus is not on what people think about self-voting, but how they explain themselves. That is to say, I look for craplogic, strawmanning, etc. rather than simply what a person's opinion is.

I'll have to agree to disagree since I think we have different thresholds for cost/benefit.

Hmm.

Well, I think the costs of self-voting are a minutely increased chance of one's own lynch, and the loss of the sort of information that you referred to in your meta-example. I think the benefit is the information gained from a discussion on the scumminess of the self-vote, which I think offsets the costs.

Well, what I look for is not whether or not people like self-voting, but "how" they respond to it. Newer players will tend to see it as scummier than experienced players will, but that isn't the important thing. My focus is on why people find it scummy, and how they justify themselves.

(-) appeal to authority;

The statement you just made seems pretty revealing to me. Pretty much the whole game so far you've been implying that the town should trust you more because your view is the view of experience, and that they should trust other players less because of their inexperience. Experience doesn't your argument any more valid, or make you less likely to be scum.

How is the statement an appeal to authority?

And since you say "the whole game", would you mind explaining how I am making implicit appeals to authority elsewhere?

I'll say right now that I think you are spouting absolute BS here, as I have never once justified myself on the basis of authority (which I don't have anyway )

[MonkeyMan576]

How is the statement an appeal to authority?

And since you say "the whole game", would you mind explaining how I am making implicit appeals to authority elsewhere?

I'll say right now that I think you are spouting absolute BS here, as I have never once justified myself on the basis of authority (which I don't have anyway )

You responded with an assertion that your "experience" (do you mean statistical evidence, or just fluffy intuition) tells you meta-lynching is inaccurate.


If the former, then I'd point out that it is exceptionally rare for random votes to have any substantial impact on the game. At the same time, self-voting has an extremely high likelihood of stirring relevant early game discussion (the discussion we are having right now is not a "theory discussion" in the pejorative sense, because it focuses on the scumminess of UA's and my actions).

Here you use probability scenarios to further your case, without backing them up, and are implying that people should trust you based on your knowledge of mafia probability.

People are entitled to whatever loopy ideas they want, but they have to be able to either justify themselves, or face accountability.

Here you are insulting other players perfectly valid ideas.

But I haven't seen or heard of it happening enough to think that self-voting discussion doesn't at least do an equally good job.

Here you are assuming that your experience makes your opinion more worthwhile.

Yeah. But, trust me, it's like clockwork that somebody will always sweat.

Here you say we should "trust you" without giving examples.

Newer players will tend to see it as scummier than experienced players will, but that isn't the important thing.

And here you actually go right out and say that you think new players opinions are less relevant.

[MonkeyMan576]

Eek, I just relalized I'm like totally posting in the wrong game here...

my apologies.

[Seol]

On the first element: I don't think it provides "reduced" information, so much as it provides "different" information. A normal random vote can provide information of the sort that FL refers to in her meta example. A self-vote sparks a discussion which provides a different source of information. I don't think either is demonstrably better than the other.

There are two issues to consider here. The first is the information gain from the original vote, where it's better to vote someone else (some, but not a great deal of information) than yourself (no information). The second is the result of that vote - the discussion - on which I think that discussion on self-voting has the effects of a) providing a defence to the self-voter (at least in this meta), b) providing an easy target in whoever attacked the self-vote, and c) forcing the agenda onto a specific topic early, whereas more organic discussion topics are, I feel, more educational.

On the second: I don't see how self-voting amounts to a divestment of responsibility. A person is as accountable for a self-vote as if they make a random vote. In fact, with the attention that a self-vote attracts, I would argue that a self-vote actually results in extra accountability in many cases.

In the case of a meta self-vote, where it's something someone does all the time, the stock defence is "I do it all the time, therefore it's a null tell". The frustrating thing about that defence it

it's valid

, and to pursue someone on something, no matter how retarded, that they do all the time regardless of alignment, isn't productive.

If it's not a meta play, then we're talking about something different.

I have a meta practice of self-voting precisely, but I don't think it is at all harmful to the town.

What do you mean by self-voting precisely? And I don't think that most people who self-vote are aware of these effects I think are harmful - I only realised them myself just now.

Could you elaborate upon your point about "countered attacks of any sort make it harder to launch additional attacks later", since I am not sure what you mean?

There are a few key points which result in attack fatigue:

Firstly, if you attack someone and lose the debate, you will be more reluctant to attack that person again on the basis that the last time you did you were defeated - you will feel you need a stronger case to launch an effective attack.

Secondly, if you attack someone and lose, when you have additional arguments you will be concerned that the original defeated argument is still affecting your judgment and you will need a greater body of evidence to feel prepared to launch an attack.

Thirdly if you launch repeated attacks on the same person, you run the risk of being viewed as having a "hard-on" for that person and your opinions not being taken as seriously by the town.

Fourthly, every time a given player wins an argument, outside observers will generally view that person as more town, regardless of whether it says anything about their alignment or not, and they will therefore be more reluctant to attack.

That's the psychology behind it.

Well, what I look for is not whether or not people like self-voting, but "how" they respond to it.

Newer players will tend to see it as scummier than experienced players

will, but that isn't the important thing. My focus is on why people find it scummy, and how they justify themselves.

The underlined point is key. Generally, newer players are much less adept at explaining why they think things are scummy, mostly because they don't have a solid theory of their own yet and much of their theory is learned only superficially - effectively all they have is appeal to zeitgeist. It's therefore much easier to deconstruct them on a justification and/or consistency basis.

PPE: Heh. MonkeyMan isn't even in this game.

Classic

.

[forbiddanlight]

Eek, I just relalized I'm like totally posting in the wrong game here...

my apologies.

That...has to be the most hilarious thing I've ever seen happen in a mafia game. Well, that is quite a flop for reaction baiting there. You got the sweat of someone not even in this game.

[Occam]

vote: Occam

unvote

server crashes

unvote

vote: Monkeyman

unvote

vote: a small orange housecat

OK, so now that that's out of the way, I think we should move past the self-voting theory discussion (especially because it was in the RV stage and vollkan seems to have a self-voting meta (and ESPECIALLY ESPECIALLY because Monkey isn't even in the game)).

Now I'm just confused about where to start... everything for the past three pages has been tossed out the window with the monkey...

[Fritzler]

If I remember right Polar Boy did that for a long time one game, which got him the title "Posts Blindly."

[Fritzler]

If I remember right Polar Boy did that for a long time one game, which got him the title "Posts Blindly."

No wait, Polar Boy posted for 7 pages in Calvin and Hobbes before realizing he wasn't in it.

Then, PeaceBringer posted in another game, and received the title of posts blindly, becasue people with the initials "PB" have this problem.

[Sir Tornado]

Also, I always vote the mod. Sometimes it's even a good idea to lynch them. But I doubt Shea is changing his name to Tarhalindur anytime soon.

Curious that you attempt to justify your joke vote.

vote Forbiddanlight

[Fritzler]

Also, I always vote the mod. Sometimes it's even a good idea to lynch them. But I doubt Shea is changing his name to Tarhalindur anytime soon.

Curious that you attempt to justify your joke vote.

vote Forbiddanlight

I support this vote.

[Occam]

btw fritz - your avatar = best band ever

[Sir Tornado]

Self voting when everyone else is random voting is pretty much irrelevent. So is random voting the mod, or not random voting, or random voting a small orange housecat. Actually, assuming the primary purpose of random voting is to get reactions, I would actually think self voting is MORE anti-town if you do it every game then if you only do it once, since you're less likely to get reactions if you do it every time. It still dosn't really matter though.

QFT

I'll add on the self voting issue just one thing: If a person

always

self votes in the beginning of the game, then although it is still a scummy action, it isn't a scum tell for that particular person, because he can't be scum in all his games.

FOS MM

Don't like his arguments on page 2.

[Sir Tornado]

[quote"MM"]
Eek, I just relalized I'm like totally posting in the wrong game here...

my apologies.
[/quote]

...

This makes me look like an absolute idiot. Not as much as Vollkan though :p

[Seol]

This makes me look like an absolute idiot. Not as much as Vollkan though :p

I believe the idiot prize over this little fiasco belongs to MM.

[Occam]

Ok then. I can see meta is going to play a large role in this game. I've read a game with vollkan, who self-votes and defends it. Apparently forbidden votes for the mod at the start of each game. So my question is - what am I going to be able to get away with? I don't have a developed meta on this site - so would voting the mod or myself (something I already did) be a scumtell? Are we going to forgive scumtells later in the game based on meta? I propose that we vote players for scumtells regardless of meta, in this game. However, I don't find self-voting or voting for the mod in the RV stage scummy. My point, though, is that out of all this discussion we've generated out of MM's misplaced argument, is that perhaps we should attempt to suspend meta this game? There are a number of experienced players here - it's going to be hard for you to toss that over your shoulder - but is it at least worth a try?

[Fritzler]

Are we going to forgive scumtells later in the game based on meta?

For me personally a scumtell is different than someone acting scummy. I would never "forgive" a scumtell, but I would ignore some highly suspect behaviour (I spell it with a u because I want to be british) based on some reasoning/logic.

[vollkan]

Here you use probability scenarios to further your case, without backing them up, and are implying that people should trust you based on your knowledge of mafia probability.

*facepalm*

I am not appealing to authority. You are abusing a logical fallacy label.

Yes, I am making two statistical claims (1) random votes rarely have a major impact; and 2) Self-voting very often stirs discussion). I base both of those claims on my experiences playing this game, and reading games. I cannot recall ever seeing random voting playing a major role in things. In contrast, I can't recall a game where self-voting has not spurred discussion.

Making those claims is not an appeal to authority. I am not saying "My argument is right because I have been on the site longer than you/have played more games than you/etc." I am simply doing what any reasonable player does in assessing the relative utility of two different plays, both of which are theoretically valid - assessing that validity in light of empirical practice.

It would be an appeal to authority if I had said anything like: "Self-voting is not scummy because I am an experienced player and I know better than you"

People are entitled to whatever loopy ideas they want, but they have to be able to either justify themselves, or face accountability.

Here you are insulting other players perfectly valid ideas.

No. I am saying that I don't really care what people think (argue that the best scumhunting strategy is to randomly lynch, for all I care), provided they have good reasons for their positions.

Here you are assuming that your experience makes your opinion more worthwhile.

Again, no I am not.

I am saying that my experience leads me to reach a particular conclusion.

Take a step back for a moment: I made a theoretical argument for self-voting and random voting both being reasonable. FL "countered" me with one game where random voting made a big difference. I said, fine, but in my experience that isn't very common. What am I meant to say - "Oh gee, well I better throw my theory and my experiences in the dust-bin because, hello, random voting proved important in one game"?

Here you say we should "trust you" without giving examples.

Yes, I don't keep mental tabs on "Games Where Self-Voting has Created Discussion". My apologies for that.

And here you actually go right out and say that you think new players opinions are less relevant.

No, I didn't.

Eek, I just relalized I'm like totally posting in the wrong game here...

my apologies.

Thank you for stealing a few hours of my life

There are two issues to consider here. The first is the information gain from the original vote, where it's better to vote someone else (some, but not a great deal of information) than yourself (no information). The second is the result of that vote - the discussion - on which I think that discussion on self-voting has the effects of a) providing a defence to the self-voter (at least in this meta), b) providing an easy target in whoever attacked the self-vote, and c) forcing the agenda onto a specific topic early, whereas more organic discussion topics are, I feel, more educational.

I agree with you on the first issue.

On the second, I'm not too sure what you mean by providing a defence (defence against what, exactly?). As for the "easy target" point, I don't think it does that any more than any normal sort of argument would (the usual pitfalls regarding inexperience, poor communication, etc. still apply). I also don't think it precludes organic discussion - either occurring concurrently, or subsequently (case in point - MM's debate with me about my apparent appealing to authority)

In the case of a meta self-vote, where it's something someone does all the time, the stock defence is "I do it all the time, therefore it's a null tell". The frustrating thing about that defence it it's valid, and to pursue someone on something, no matter how retarded, that they do all the time regardless of alignment, isn't productive.

I see what you mean. My reasoning on this is basically that the average random vote, like the one I made before I decided to self-vote and have go a round with MM, is extremely unlikely to attract suspicion anyway. Obviously, it's unfortunate when a player can simply say "It's my meta", even if they have no justification for what they do. However, I think that, given there is little risk in the alternative path of a standard random vote, a self-vote, which at least exposes the self-voter to scrutiny in argument, is a reasonable course. (having said that, it's obviously true that if a person simply self-votes for the sake of self-voting and then says "It's my meta" without any wider point, then their conduct is self-insulating and has no net benefit of any sort)

I have a meta practice of self-voting precisely, but I don't think it is at all harmful to the town.

What do you mean by self-voting precisely?

It's a typo. I use Google Chrome and as my browser it has this annoying tendency to appear to delete words when in fact they aren't deleted.

I had initially written: "I have a meta practice of self-voting precisely because I don't think it is at all harmful to the town." That didn't sound right to me when I wrote it. However, looking at it again, it makes more sense than what I actually posted.

There are a few key points which result in attack fatigue:

Firstly, if you attack someone and lose the debate, you will be more reluctant to attack that person again on the basis that the last time you did you were defeated - you will feel you need a stronger case to launch an effective attack.

Secondly, if you attack someone and lose, when you have additional arguments you will be concerned that the original defeated argument is still affecting your judgment and you will need a greater body of evidence to feel prepared to launch an attack.

Thirdly if you launch repeated attacks on the same person, you run the risk of being viewed as having a "hard-on" for that person and your opinions not being taken as seriously by the town.

Fourthly, every time a given player wins an argument, outside observers will generally view that person as more town, regardless of whether it says anything about their alignment or not, and they will therefore be more reluctant to attack.

That's the psychology behind it.

I've never thought of this before, but you make a very good point (or, rather, four very good points) here. The one point I have in response is that the same can be said for any early game debate. Obviously, though, that becomes somewhat more problematic when a self-voter deliberately creates a debating environment. I need to think about this some more.

The underlined point is key. Generally, newer players are much less adept at explaining why they think things are scummy, mostly because they don't have a solid theory of their own yet and much of their theory is learned only superficially - effectively all they have is appeal to zeitgeist. It's therefore much easier to deconstruct them on a justification and/or consistency basis.

I know this, and I do try to account for it. The same goes for any argument with a newer player.

This makes me look like an absolute idiot. Not as much as Vollkan though :p

I operate on the assumption that the people posting here are meant to be posting here. Clearly, I may have to revise that assumption. (I just checked to make sure

you

were in the game )

So my question is - what am I going to be able to get away with? I don't have a developed meta on this site - so would voting the mod or myself (something I already did) be a scumtell?

It would depend on how you justified yourself.

Are we going to forgive scumtells later in the game based on meta?

I don't agree with the premise of your question. I think scumtells are inseparable from meta. Sure, we can objectively reason certain things to be more likely to come from scum than town, but putting them into practice within a game, I think, requires that you look at a person's history.

[Minineko]

If you are town, you are voting for a townie(yourself). Voting for a townie is scummy behavior, meaning, either scummy in appearance, or scummy in fact.

That's some pretty crappy logic there. Your first sentence is correct, but the second one is quite a sophism.

What the person selfvoting is scum? That means they're voting for scum, which makes them town, right?

3) First of all, I'm not ignoring meta. I'm stating that my view on self voting outweighs his meta, in my opinion in this instance. I don't believe that's anti town, I believe that's pro town. You're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine.

He selfvotes in every game. Does this make him scum in every game? Your logic seems to indicate so.

Self voting when everyone else is random voting is pretty much irrelevent. So is random voting the mod, or not random voting, or random voting a small

green

cat.

Yay, someone is making sense. (I fixed a small detail)

EPIC FIAL?!

Um... I was gonna say I thought Monkeyman was probably town... eh, back to the drawing board.

Meow.

[Sir Tornado]

Minineko, why did you think MM was town? I do not get your reasoning for that deduction.