Newbie 345: Another town has fallen...

[OnFire]

Braze, you had voted for V-R K prior to the crash - was that a random vote or did you have a reason?

Forget it - now that I took the time to look back at Page 1, I see that it was random.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

First off, thank you, diamondfalcon. You posted this:

2) I'm just observing, and a little unclear of what to look for at this point. Since I don't want to risk sounding random, I've just been sticking to reading. I'll try to give more input if and when I see something though.

I have been playing very gingerly, not wanting to risk being wrong, since day 1 of my last game (When I got another Townie lynched... Oops!) Your post made me realize that by doing so I am just throwing a free pass to scum. The way it made me see this is that if townies are inactive it gives the scum a free pass to hide themselves. More specifically, avoiding risk is something the town should never do. So thank you for making me realize I need to get back in the game and

Vote: Diamondfalcon

for flat out saying he is doing something (avoiding risk) that is not a town play.

So, you're voting for Diamondfalcon based on behavior you admit to exhibiting?

FoS: Innocent Townie

Please explain why you find that Df's behavior is worthy of a vote if you are guilty of it also.

Vel-Rahn Koon: The game you linked was interesting, but it seems they had a lot more definitive plays that got rolled back. When they restarted, several of them thought they knew (and in one case actually did know) who the scum were. I do not believe any of us can claim that this game, so possibly that game makes for a poor model. That being said, it was an interesting case study.
I think in post 18 Ectomancer was just looking for anyone to mount a full frontal assault on. He found me, and we had some good (albeit now deleted) arguments. At that point I believe he was just looking to generate discussion.
I agree with your point of view on Mert’s post.

I was simply trying to find a way for us to generate discussion, but it looks as if Mert has done that for us I wasn't expecting that game to be a perfect parallel, but I thought maybe we could get something from it.

My point concerning Ecto was merely how I would have played it. You were directly involved in the conversation, so your recollection of the situation is probably much sharper than my own.

What would really help us is a review of any newbie games that started around the time of the Oct 2006 crash, and see how they handled it when the forums came back online.

You live too much in the past. That doesn't work in this game. To me, you're obviously trying to hide something, or put yourself in some sort of mindset to hide your motives.

Vote Vel-Rahn Koon

So you're voting for me based on trying to find a way to get the game back on track? You're reasoning is weak, so I'd like to hear something more substantial than what you're claiming.


@Diamondfalcon: Post 44 is rather nervous-sounding. I'd like to see you answer Mert's post 45 question. Why do you assume post 43 was aimed at you specifically?

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Just an observation, but seems like Mert and IT are taking the same sides again. Like I said before, I wouldn't think that mafia would do this, so I suppose it's just a coincidence.

I don't agree that they're taking sides, because Mert's post 43 is, for all intents and purposes, a random vote (or that's how I'm reading it). The fact that IT is following Mert (I seem to remember he was doing this pre-crash as well - please correct me if I'm wrong) is much more interesting. I agree that I wouldn't think a scum pair would associate this closely either, but if it is a Mert/IT scum pair, then IT could just be making newbie mistakes.

[Ectomancer]

Just an observation, but seems like Mert and IT are taking the same sides again. Like I said before, I wouldn't think that mafia would do this, so I suppose it's just a coincidence.

I don't agree that they're taking sides, because Mert's post 43 is, for all intents and purposes, a random vote (or that's how I'm reading it). The fact that IT is following Mert (I seem to remember he was doing this pre-crash as well - please correct me if I'm wrong) is much more interesting. I agree that I wouldn't think a scum pair would associate this closely either, but if it is a Mert/IT scum pair, then IT could just be making newbie mistakes.

Trying to get back into playing mafia since the move. Might take me another day or so to get back into the swing of things.
IT didnt strike me as newbie scum. He has appeared to have latched on to Mert a bit though. Mert, if I recall correctly, did play a kind of big brother/authority role on IT's side during some exchanges. If Mert is a subtle enough player to set up a scum/town buddy situation that early, then it appears from IT's moves that he could have a great pairing to go into a final day 3 player lylo.

[BrazeGoesMoo]

So you're voting for me based on trying to find a way to get the game back on track? You're reasoning is weak, so I'd like to hear something more substantial than what you're claiming.

I'm voting you because I feel that your constant mentioning of past games was scummy as it moves attention away from the current game and adds more information that isn't relevant to this game. I have no clue where you pulled the

In fact, I put an FoS on you on post #39 for always trying to introduce information from other games. The first post you put after that, #41, you go on and bring up, yet again, another game from the past.

As for voting to get the game back on track? I've never said anything along those lines. I think you're scummy.

[diamondfalcon]

@Diamondfalcon: Post 44 is rather nervous-sounding. I'd like to see you answer Mert's post 45 question. Why do you assume post 43 was aimed at you specifically?

Why are we suddenly so scared of getting reactions through random voting?

Vote: diamondfalcon

When did I say it was to do with your not posting much recently?

Ok, V-R K, I'm pretty sure post 43 was directed as a reply to my reason 2 in post 40 and Mert votes me at the end of the post, so it was not at all random. He was saying that my being so cautious as to not post much in order to risk being random was not town play. And so Mert, that's what "risking being random" has to do with my not posting recently, at least partially. But as you might now see, I've been trying to be more overt because I honestly have nothing to hide. I just didn't want to make mistakes not in relation to my role, but rather to giving the mafia reason to force blame upon me, in lylo perhaps. In the games I've played up until now, there were always some players more inactive than me so I hadn't had a question about that reasoning until now.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

So you're voting for me based on trying to find a way to get the game back on track? You're reasoning is weak, so I'd like to hear something more substantial than what you're claiming.

I'm voting you because I feel that your constant mentioning of past games was scummy as it moves attention away from the current game and adds more information that isn't relevant to this game. I have no clue where you pulled the

Will you finish the last sentence please? As for adding information that isn't relative to the game, do you not agree that the post between IT and you concerning your forum icon isn't along the same lines - adding information not relevant to the game?

In fact, I put an FoS on you on post #39 for always trying to introduce information from other games. The first post you put after that, #41, you go on and bring up, yet again, another game from the past.

As for voting to get the game back on track? I've never said anything along those lines. I think you're scummy.

I talked about

two

past games. One was a game I played in and was using as a reason for why I didn't get into the banter that occurred pre-crash (the banter being gone now). That information was relative to my defense for being quiet. The other was a way to help us move forward. I don't consider two instances "

always

trying to introduce information from other games" (emphasis mine).

No you didn't say that's why you were voting for me, but you have to have a reason to think I'm scum and that's all I could think of for your reason for the vote, hence the call in post 51 for further clarification.

[MeMe]

Vote Count

:

diamondfalcon

(2):

Mert, Innocent Townie

Mert

(1):

diamondfalcon

Vel-Rahn Koon

(1):

BrazeGoesMoo

not voting

(3):

Ectomancer, OnFire, Vel-Rahn Koon

Four to lynch.

[OnFire]

First off, thank you, diamondfalcon. You posted this:

2) I'm just observing, and a little unclear of what to look for at this point. Since I don't want to risk sounding random, I've just been sticking to reading. I'll try to give more input if and when I see something though.

I have been playing very gingerly, not wanting to risk being wrong, since day 1 of my last game (When I got another Townie lynched... Oops!) Your post made me realize that by doing so I am just throwing a free pass to scum. The way it made me see this is that if townies are inactive it gives the scum a free pass to hide themselves. More specifically, avoiding risk is something the town should never do. So thank you for making me realize I need to get back in the game and

Vote: Diamondfalcon

for flat out saying he is doing something (avoiding risk) that is not a town play.

So, you're voting for Diamondfalcon based on behavior you admit to exhibiting?

FoS: Innocent Townie

Please explain why you find that Df's behavior is worthy of a vote if you are guilty of it also.

I've got to agree with V-R K here. Your position makes perfect sense until the vote, i.e. "looking at your (Df's) behavior makes me realize that I've been playing in a similar fashion and that's not good for the town. So I'm going to vote for you (Df) for this anti-town play."

If your reasoning is sound and Df's playing was indeed anti-town and vote-worthy, why the heck shouldn't I vote for you when you were admittedly doing the same?

[Ectomancer]

Hrmm, VK and OF are making some sense here, however 2 things prevent me from joining them, first off, I dont think IT has me fooled. 2nd, I dont like Diamond breadcrumbing a power role in an attempt to get the 2 votes off of him either. I'd prefer to see him defend himself any other way, because it is way to soon to be considering a claim.

[diamondfalcon]

What does breadcrumbing mean? I'd like to make a defense, but I don't know what you're accusing me of exactly lol.

[diamondfalcon]

Do you mean that I'm hinting at being a power role? Because I never did that. I just said that the reason I was being cautious earlier about what I posted was because I didn't want to make mistakes that would give the mafia any reason to set me up for lynch. But then I was informed by Mert and IT that doing this was anti-town so I said I would try to be more open, and stop worrying about being random. I still think that IT is suspicious, perhaps he is mafia and latching on to Mert since he is a more experienced player.

[Innocent Townie]

BrazeGoesMoo: I care if Vel-Rahn Koon is being pushed because his participation with you pushing him, while better than not contributing at all, is more suspicious to my mind than his participating without anyone doing anything to make him. Just a minor thing, but still something that makes a difference.

DiamondFalcon: Yeah… I am kind of disturbed that Mert is seeing things the same way as me. That being said, he voted for diamondfalcon first, so I can hardly accuse him of following. Something I should point out is that if we are afraid to do the same thing as each other we will be unable to make headway. I will not change my actions based on what another does. Well, that statement is false. Based on what others do I will alter my suspicions, which will affect what I do. And early in the game I will vote without really wanting to lynch to generate conversation, so that a run up on the person I am voting for will make me unvote…
So I guess what I meant to say is that I will not act differently just to avoid associating myself with someone. If we are all afraid to do the same thing we have cannot generate as much pressure, and it seems to be pressure that generates interaction.
I am kind of in the same boat as you; trying to learn to play the game. One thing I would caution you on is not to not suspect things just because Mafia would not do them. Mafia has to play to win, so they are incentivized to do things the town would not do.
Based on that, I am hoping Mert is not scum, because if he is at this point I think my head would be on the line. I still am undecided about him: I feel he is going after scummy plays, but that seems like something everyone should be doing, scum or not. What just disturbs me is I just pointed out why aggressiveness is good for the town and still you equivocate. What are you afraid of?

Vel-Rahn Koon/OnFire:

you're voting for Diamondfalcon based on behavior you admit to exhibiting?

Yes. I am. Because until his post I had not realized why my lack of confidence had to be a bad thing. When I realized how it was bad and understood why it allowed me to use that knowledge to look at others’ play. The most hypocritical thing I could do would be pretend that I had been aggressive when I had not. That does no one any good. The greatest advantage of being town is the ability to be totally honest. For me to claim I do not make mistakes will in the long run set up more opportunities for the game to be derailed than for me to be open about realizations I have as I have them. And to overlook a potential scum sign just because I have been guilty of it in my ignorance does not seem like the right play.

Open question: If you realized you were doing something that decreases the town’s changes of winning when you found someone else doing it what would you do?

[Mert]

Yes, breadcrumbing is hinting at a role. In the story of Hansel and Gretel, they left breadcrumbs so they could find their way back out of the forest. In the context of a mafia game, it means to leave a trail behind you so that you could later claim cop (for example) and say "look, I've hinted at being cop here, here and here".

It can be useful to the town if they have to choose between two players claiming the same role, as while it doesn't prove your alignment, it does show you'd thought about it throughout the game and shows it is, at least, not made up on-the-spot as you're under pressure.

That said, tricky scum often very subtly breadcrumb one or many roles so they can claim later.

What Ecto is saying is that your breadcrumbing (or hinting at a power role) might either mean you're scum trying to set up a claim for later or you do genuinely have a power role, in which case you may out yourself to scum by doing so. Neither is good for the town, so you should only hint when can be pretty certain it won't be picked up until you point it out, but will become clear when you have done so.

That said, I'm not sure what I think of Ecto pointing out DF's breadcrumbing so openly in the public domain. This is remarkably similar to the discussion we had before, but this could be a further sign of a player flagging up something to less experienced scum for attention by so blatantly saying it... one to come back to later I think.

Hope that answers your question, DF

[diamondfalcon]

Yeah, it does. I figure breadcrumbing would be useful, I hadn't thought of it. Either way, I wasn't hinting at a power role. And now that I've seen IT's stance, what do you think about IT's siding with you, Mert?

[Mert]

What do you think about IT's siding with you, Mert?

Honestly, I think it's too early to tell if there's something suspicious about it. I am, of course, always wary of people who seem to follow my lead because I'm just as uninformed as 5/7 of this town and, just because I've voted for somebody, doesn't mean I'm necessarily right.

But having said that, I don't see anything in IT's posts right now that imply he's blindly following my lead. It could be that we think on the same wavelength or it could just be coincidence.

So right now, I don't think it necessarily means anything. Certainly not enough for a vote, but I'll continue to watch him and, if I do get the feeling I'm being "buddied up to" then I'll say something.

Right now I'm more interested in the OMGUS vote you put on me in [44].

[diamondfalcon]

I'm keeping it because you're keeping your vote on me even after I explained myself. I'm not as experienced at arguing as you, but I think changing my vote away from you just to get you off my back is very un-townlike. You're wrong about me, and though I may be wrong about you too, I will take the risk since that's what I do now.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Ok, V-R K, I'm pretty sure post 43 was directed as a reply to my reason 2 in post 40 and Mert votes me at the end of the post, so it was not at all random.

"Pretty sure"? Post 43 contained a statement about random voting and how we shouldn't be afraid to use it, and then a vote for you. This says to me that the vote was random. Mert didn't mention your name anywhere in there, as he explains in post 45. Since he didn't bring you up specifically, why are you "pretty sure" that it was aimed at your post 40?

You seem to be acting really nervous, first by sitting back and reading and not wanting to make any mistakes (IT weighed in on this, and voted you for it), and then went and took post 43 as if it was aimed solely at your post 40. That post was aimed at all of us, and I'm glad Mert made that post because it's exactly what we all needed to get the game going again.

Can you explain why you're feeling so nervous? There's two types of players here: Town and Scum. Town have no reason to lie, and therefore they can say what they think and what they feel and not have to worry about getting lynched. A Townie who gets himself lynched is a bad player, and was lynched because he was acting scummy, and was giving off dishonest signals.

The Scum have to lie, and sooner or later they'll screw up. Which one are you Df? If you're Town, there's no need to be nervous and worry about the scum coming for you later on. Acting too cautious is, to me anyway, a scumtell, because only the scum have to constantly worry whether what they're saying is consistent with what they've said before.

Your post 66 is, IMO, an excellent post. Mert is correct in that your retaliatory vote is an OMGUS vote, but your assertion that changing your vote just to make someone else happy is "very un-townlike" is dead on.

@IT: If I realized I was doing something that decreased the town's chances of winning when I saw someone else do it I would:

1. Change the behavior. If you're not helping the town, you're hurting the town, and making it more difficult to find scum.
2. I can see how your vote was used to emphasize your point, especially as a way to garner a reaction, but IMO it makes you look hypocritical. I'm not sure that I'd go so far as to vote for the person that was exhibiting the same behavior I was, but I would most definitely point it out. I guess it would depend on the circumstances.

[diamondfalcon]

Ok, thanks for the tips, but I still don't see who else was talking about random posting that Mert could be talking to. Ask him yourself, he knows he was talking to me.
And I'm not being nervous, though I may appear so. I just don't want anyone pulling any kind of tricks on me just because I'm new. You guys are experienced at twisting logic (I'm not saying that you are), and I would hate for a mafiat to do that to me later. Anyways, if you've noticed, I'm trying to change that. See, I'm learning!

[OnFire]

There's two types of players here: Town and Scum. Town have no reason to lie, and therefore they can say what they think and what they feel and not have to worry about getting lynched.

Sorry, this is way too definitive for me. Townies have all kinds of reasons to worry about getting lynched, because there are duplicitous Mafia trying to make it happen, by twisting words and "misinterpreting" posts and trying to convince other townies that they are scum. Townies definitely have no reason to lie, but that doesn't mean they have no reason to worry - the

slightest

turn of phrase can get you FoS or voted on, particularly on Day One.

A Townie who gets himself lynched is a bad player, and was lynched because he was acting scummy, and was giving off dishonest signals.

Wrong again, or "too definitive" again, at least. When there are players actively trying to get you lynched, and you get lynched, that does not

necessarily

mean that you are a bad player. Other townies could mistakenly see something that's no there or, again, scum can twist your words to make you look scummy. Why are you downplaying/ignoring the mafia's role here?

FOS Vel-Rahn Koon

[OnFire]

I want to follow up on my post above to discuss a more general topic brought up by IT and V-R K with regard to DF, i.e. inactivity or risky playing. I believe there is a middle ground between these that is most beneficial to town. IT's point that if you are too meek and inactive, you allow the scum to hide is well taken. We must generate conversation, reaction and analysis. However, his conclusion:

More specifically, avoiding risk is something the town should never do.

is too much for me. Just as we should not be too inactive, neither should we be heedless. It is in scum's best interest for quick bandwagons to get launched and for days to end early without enough discussion.

All things in moderation 8)

[Ectomancer]

There's two types of players here: Town and Scum. Town have no reason to lie, and therefore they can say what they think and what they feel and not have to worry about getting lynched.

Sorry, this is way too definitive for me. Townies have all kinds of reasons to worry about getting lynched, because there are duplicitous Mafia trying to make it happen, by twisting words and "misinterpreting" posts and trying to convince other townies that they are scum. Townies definitely have no reason to lie, but that doesn't mean they have no reason to worry - the

slightest

turn of phrase can get you FoS or voted on, particularly on Day One.

A Townie who gets himself lynched is a bad player, and was lynched because he was acting scummy, and was giving off dishonest signals.

Wrong again, or "too definitive" again, at least. When there are players actively trying to get you lynched, and you get lynched, that does not

necessarily

mean that you are a bad player. Other townies could mistakenly see something that's no there or, again, scum can twist your words to make you look scummy. Why are you downplaying/ignoring the mafia's role here?

FOS Vel-Rahn Koon

:goodposting:

@Mert on the breadcrumb discussion.
As you stated, the situation could apply as either scum or town. Since the odds for either could be 50/50, on that front it makes it a wash. However, since scum power derives from knowledge they possess that town doesnt, I felt it more important for the town to possess that information than for me to keep quiet about it. As we both have pointed out as well, this is a learning game, and as I stated before, Im interested in having as many different concepts exposed as possible.
Moreover, though I will neither confirm nor deny it, if you analyze the situation I could be breadcrumbing myself by bringing it up. I said the odds were 50/50, but there is valid reason I could know the odds to be different.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Let me add some detail, because I don't think you are taking this the way I intended it.

There's two types of players here: Town and Scum. Town have no reason to lie, and therefore they can say what they think and what they feel and not have to worry about getting lynched.

Sorry, this is way too definitive for me. Townies have all kinds of reasons to worry about getting lynched, because there are duplicitous Mafia trying to make it happen, by twisting words and "misinterpreting" posts and trying to convince other townies that they are scum. Townies definitely have no reason to lie, but that doesn't mean they have no reason to worry - the

slightest

turn of phrase can get you FoS or voted on, particularly on Day One.

A Townie who is playing like a townie doesn't have to worry about getting lynched

due to the things

he

says

. Sure the scum are going to try to twist what you're saying, and make a mountain out of a molehill, but this leads right into my second point: A good player will not let himself get into that situation by making bad statements that can be interpreted as, or twitsted into, seeming scummy. And, the duplicitous mafia can't push too hard, or they just give themselves away by being too aggressive in going after small, nit-picky points. We're all human, so we're bound to make mistakes and not be a perfect townie. But, if the slightest turn of phrase gets you an FoS and then enough votes to cause your lynch, then you're not a good player. A good player won't let that happen.

A Townie who gets himself lynched is a bad player, and was lynched because he was acting scummy, and was giving off dishonest signals.

Wrong again, or "too definitive" again, at least. When there are players actively trying to get you lynched, and you get lynched, that does not

necessarily

mean that you are a bad player. Other townies could mistakenly see something that's no there or, again, scum can twist your words to make you look scummy. Why are you downplaying/ignoring the mafia's role here?

FOS Vel-Rahn Koon

Not too definitive I don't think. The statement reads "A townie who gets

HIMSELF

lynched...". The statement was going towards a Townie who screws up so badly that he gets himself lynched. The statement didn't say anything towards scum manipulating people into lynching someone who makes a mistake.

I'll admit that they aren't necessarily the best set of examples, because these are examples in the extreme, and most players aren't going to fall into either of these extremes. But, they serve to illustrate the point that I was asking Df: why he was being so nervous - nervous to the point where it was affecting his involvement in the game.

[Innocent Townie]

OnFire: It is quite easy to spell your own doom on day one as a townie. However, to fear to do so stifles the game. If I can generate conversation and get people involved and posting then it is worth it. If I say something that gets twisted all out of proportion and gets me lynched then that should provide valuable information. The goal is not for me to live; it is for me to win. The same should hold for every other townie.
I know someone is going to ask "Well, what if you have a power role?" First off, please do not; it would help give you away. Secondly; it does not matter. To play differently because you have a power role (in a C9 game at least) is asking to be night killed. And not stay out of the game removes too much of the town's limited brainpower, which is always our greatest asset.
So I have to disagree with you, OnFire, and I will restate:

Avoiding risk is something we should never do.

That is not to say we should take needless risks, and I would certainly neither say something I know would get me lynched (unless I could be sure of taking the scum down with me) nor will I sit idly by and let myself be torn down without doing everything I can to pull out as much information as possible for days 2 and 3. But I honestly believe that any fear of getting lynched is not proper town play. Again, this does not mean we should try to be lynched; far from it: just that when right is on one’s side one must know it.
Further, there is a huge advantage to always being able to tell the truth, but it can only be fully leveraged by fully telling the truth; fear diminishes the distinction that may otherwise be made.
Lastly, you point out that scum are incentivized to try to twist the words of townies and get them lynched. This is true, and is another reason why having no fear is a good thing: if a townie says something questionable the only people with doubt about whether it is questionable are the other townies: the scum already knows it was a mistake, but are simultaneously driven to try to prove it was not. Because of this the scum have an incentive to try to make a case against questionable points. Even if the scum manage to get someone hung, there then exist pages of arguments to pore over (well, barring another major crash, anyhow) to locate them. And isn’t that really the whole point of day one? To get a base of information to allow for correct deduction? If not, then someone please explain to me why not, but I fail to see a good way to pick out scum in any other way (barring bad play on their part)

[OnFire]

So I have to disagree with you, OnFire, and I will restate:

Avoiding risk is something we should never do.

I'm not sure we're all that far apart, actually. I completely agree (and stated above) that we must be active and generate discussion. However, if "never avoiding risk" means playing without caution, then that's something I cannot agree with. Incautious play by the town can only help the mafia.

(Note: cautious does not = meek)