Mini #564 - Mafia in Crubtown - Game Over

[Talitha]

Yay - welcome EmpTyger!

I'm just checking in, I'll catch up with the game sometime over the next couple of days.

[darkdude]

It just doesn’t seem to add up with the newbie you’re claiming. Like, consider what you say when QF questioned you:

Perhaps you (and other players brooding over this) misunderstand.

I am no newb in the game of mafia (though some may claim otherwise due to my mistakes so far). I am new only to this forum. The unspoken rules and practices differ even between online mafia sites, I'm sure you know.

They’re not mutually exclusive rationales. I mean, lying + having extra information fits mafia to a tee. For that matter, lying + having extra information + lynching a townsperson.

Hey that's an interesting way of looking at it. Seems like we all missed that aspect the first time. I think we should indeed investigate more on that issue.

And a side note: I'm sorry I don't have enough time for a more detailed post right now. Very busy these days. I'll try to skim over important stuff for now.

[Crub]

Ninth Vote Count of Day 2

EmpTyger(1):

thevampireofdusseldorf

QuantumFruit (1):

darkdude

darkdude (1):

Talitha

Cephrir (1):

Pink Puppy

vikingfan (1):

Akonas

Not Voting (5):

Cephrir, QuantumFruit, windkirby, vikingfan, EmpTyger

With 10 alive it takes 6 to lynch.

[EmpTyger]

PP:

I will go so far as to say people who use "he's overdefensive" or "he's reactive" as a argument, are probably scum. This is because it is such a gray area -- where does defending yourself become overdefensive? Where does reacting to other people's scummy actions become reactive?

Both overdefensive and reactive can be suspicious, if either is used in a situation where a protown wouldn’t. The key is context. Don’t lose it.

---

vikingfan:
Talitha is making a good point about [199]- especially since you ignored the Cephrir/Yvonne interaction earlier in D1. What makes darkdude different from Cephrir?

---

QF:

Mozsuggs I dont feel like reading through all your recent posts just yet, I may go back to look over them for amusment at some stage.
I think your biggest flaw in this game has been the I know im innocent and if I say it enough with enough conviction people might believe me. We have no way what so ever to know your innocent on day one but we can judge this on how you play, your actions, votes, accusations, what you say in your posts etc.
<snip>

This didn’t sound like someone casting a lynch-1 vote on someone they thought was mafia. This sounded like someone saying goodbye to someone they knew were innoncent.

However- I’ll admit that the more I parse, the less sure I am, and while I *hate* second-guessing myself about instinctive reads, I just caught VoD’s [233] on my on my reread of D1, and that does ease some of my concerns.

<snip>
About Cephrir's whole 3 scum thing: I noticed it, but there are typically three scum in this size of a game, so it seems like an assumption one would hold true and state as fact.

Where’s this coming from? As far as I can tell, your experience with this size consists of this and 2 others, all of which are still in progress. How do you know what the typical number is?

---

darkdude:
No, I understand your defense perfectly. I happen to think you’re stretching it as a convenient excuse. Let me put it this way:

When D2 began, instead of trying to find mafia, you were instead seeing (a) if the nightkill could be traced to you and (b) what you could do to deflect it. Are you saying that, in the medium you usually play in, that is something that a protown player would do? If so, how on earth do you ever find mafia?

---

Cephrir:

<snip>
Okay, that's fine. Couldn't tell what you meant is all. And I would assume the mafia didn't bother because it's a bit weak as a sole means of determining someone is scum, and besides, they knew I was telling the truth. I was surprised no one else commented, as well.

Well, let’s not go so far as to dismiss it as “weak”. It wasn’t.

[Cephrir]

Well, let’s not go so far as to dismiss it as “weak”. It wasn’t.

I don't agree, but I suppose I'm biased.

[windkirby]

emptyger - It seems as if you're exaggerating a bit on the darkdude thing. Townies don't want to get lynched either - it makes it pretty hard for them to win. I don't think darkdude's response to the "frame" as he called it, was that anti-town, especially since he seemed to look for some scum soon thereafter.

[darkdude]

When D2 began, instead of trying to find mafia, you were instead seeing (a) if the nightkill could be traced to you and (b) what you could do to deflect it. Are you saying that, in the medium you usually play in, that is something that a protown player would do? If so, how on earth do you ever find mafia?

Think about this. My best course of action was to clear my name as soon as possible. If I did not say anything, then sooner or later someone would pick up the connection between me and Yvonne's arguing and assume that I killed her. Making it WIFOM at least put that out of the way for the time being, so I could help find scum better.

Townies want to live too!

Anyways, looking at the big picture, I notice a strange phenomenon.

As soon as zeddicus' replacement came in, everyone started defending against Tyger's questioning instead of searching for scum themselves. Tyger has the right to question to catch up on the game, but I don't know why everyone else is idling around. At least that's what seems to me.

[thevampireofdusseldorf]

@Darkdude you are right about the idling around at this point at least I know that true for me. My attention has been focused on my other games, I think I did a two hour post last night and hopefuly nailed scum with it. In this one zeddicus was my top suspect so having him replaced does mostly throw the case out the window.
So to be honest I am really at a loss for who to be suspicious of. Today I will look back over day one and see what suspicions went on there to to find something to get me moving.

[Cephrir]

Mod: You have me voting for EmpTyger and Not Voting at the same time.oops - fixed.

[EmpTyger]

windkirby:

emptyger - It seems as if you're exaggerating a bit on the darkdude thing. Townies don't want to get lynched either - it makes it pretty hard for them to win.

There’s a lot of theory that I honestly don’t think I want to delve into. But, the short answer is, no.
Mafia, if they are merely trying to avoid being lynched, can kill people at night, and they will eventually win.
Townspeople, if they are merely trying to avoid being lynched, can’t. If they don’t lynch mafia during the day, they will eventually lose.
(Yes, power roles do affect the calculus, although ultimately the fundamental conclusion is the same.)

I don't think darkdude's response to the "frame" as he called it, was that anti-town, especially since he seemed to look for some scum soon thereafter.

For the first 2 weeks of D2, it seemed that darkdude did anything but. First he said that no one was suspicious, and in particular he defended VoD. Then he reversed and said that VoD was suspicious, while still saying that no one else seemed suspicious. Then he voted zeddicus, but specified that it was for lurking, not for any suspicions.
What do you see differently in darkdude’s response?

---

darkdude:
[quote="quote="darkdude "]<snip>
Anyways, looking at the big picture, I notice a strange phenomenon.

As soon as zeddicus' replacement came in, everyone started defending against Tyger's questioning instead of searching for scum themselves. Tyger has the right to question to catch up on the game, but I don't know why everyone else is idling around. At least that's what seems to me.[/quote]
Be more specific. Who and what?

[QuantumFruit]

@vikingfan:

QF: yeah, it's my train of thought. I think it's harder for votes to slip by since they have to be bolded and will thus jump off the screen at the reader. Who is your boyfriend in this game? QFT is quoted for truth.

Akonas. (In real life, not just for purposes of the game. ) Also, what do you mean by "QFT is quoted for truth?"

@EmpTyger:

About Cephrir's whole 3 scum thing: I noticed it, but there are typically three scum in this size of a game, so it seems like an assumption one would hold true and state as fact.

Where’s this coming from? As far as I can tell, your experience with this size consists of this and 2 others, all of which are still in progress. How do you know what the typical number is?

Akonas has been playing for a while and he basically told me all of this before I joined the site.

@darkdude: As a replacement, I think EmpTyger has a right to ask for clarification on various matters. You know, because had he been in the game previously, he might have asked then. I don't see how this process detracts from scum-hunting, seeing as how it would help us pick up on things we might have overlooked. Explain your logic.

[Pink Puppy]

PP:

I will go so far as to say people who use "he's overdefensive" or "he's reactive" as a argument, are probably scum. This is because it is such a gray area -- where does defending yourself become overdefensive? Where does reacting to other people's scummy actions become reactive?

Both overdefensive and reactive can be suspicious, if either is used in a situation where a protown wouldn’t. The key is context. Don’t lose it.

I guess I have just seen these arguments overused, and seen them used in such a way that any response to them is seen as more scummy. It becomes a catch-22 for anyone accused of it. I've just seen a town go wrong a lot lately when they follow this kind of argument.

I will admit that in certain situations "defensiveness" can mean something when combined with other scummy things. But on it's own as an argument, I think it's bad. I guess this is the "context" you refer too. But I still am suspicious of people who rely on this argument too much, or set up other people so that any response they make is automatically more scummy.

[darkdude]

@darkdude: As a replacement, I think EmpTyger has a right to ask for clarification on various matters. You know, because had he been in the game previously, he might have asked then. I don't see how this process detracts from scum-hunting, seeing as how it would help us pick up on things we might have overlooked. Explain your logic.

I don't think it's a bad thing, and already said that he has the right to ask about earlier parts of the game. But we seem to be delaying scum hunting. I just thought I should speak that one out.

[Cephrir]

PP- why are you still voting for me?

[EmpTyger]

Some tidbits from rereading D1

---

darkdude:

Yeah I guess you're right guys. This new lead seems much more promising to look into.

Yeah I read the whole damned paragraph. Seems like scum.

I don't think I'll vote just yet though. Also it could be just inexperience in general instead of scumming... a townie could freak out in a similar way.

How could anyone miss this post?

This is basically darkdude throwing in a little something to show that he has suspicions for windkirby and then covering his tracks by not voting and saying windkirby could be a townie. Maybe he already knows windkirby is a townie. Supporting a wagon from the sidelines but not committing yourself to it is a really scummy thing to do.

vote darkdude

Besides what Yvonne noticed, there’s something else strange here. You’re conceding that Cephrir was right about windkirby- but yet you’ve left your vote on Cephrir!

Also, regarding your “we seem to be delaying scum hunting”, I’ll repeat myself:

<snip>
Anyways, looking at the big picture, I notice a strange phenomenon.

As soon as zeddicus' replacement came in, everyone started defending against Tyger's questioning instead of searching for scum themselves. Tyger has the right to question to catch up on the game, but I don't know why everyone else is idling around. At least that's what seems to me.

Be more specific. Who and what?

---

VoD:
Any reason you are so concerned about a jester? Odd thing to have brought up even once much less repeatedly.

The posts seem to be dominated by 3 players so far would be nice to hear from some of the others in this game!

If you can remember, which 3 did you consider?

---

Talitha:

<snip>
Darkdude - I hate to try to lynch a newbie on the first day, but can't give out any free passes as this is a cut-throat game! Your reactions strike me as controlled rather than natural, and you're arguing about word use rather than why you're not scum.

vote: darkdude

...Dammit, after reading over his posts, I'm having second thoughts... He might not be scum. And he's new.

unvote: darkdude

<snip>

Specifically, what were the second thoughts you found?

---

Akonas:
What did you think of Cephrir’s 3-scum comment? It seems odd to me that, in your first post after it was mentioned, you ignore it.

---

vikingfan:
How come you ignored Cephrir’s, but said this to mozs:

2 scum? how on earth do you know that? 3 is generally accepted but there can always be more or less. but yes, there's generally MORE than two, but that's not a hard and fast rule.

Explain that very quickly because I don't like where you're going.

---

QF:

<snip>
I can change my vote when I see fit, but at this point, I see most reason for voting windkirby than anyone else (except maybe Cephrir, who I am quite suspicious of at the moment as well for being so dismissive).
<snip>

Could you explain this? This level of suspicion from you for Cephrir seems to come out of nowhere, and never really gets mentioned again.

On yet another reflection on VoD, I think that, if VoD were innocent and thought that mozs were guilty, he would have said something like, “if I say im innocent enough with enough conviction people might believe me”. Instead, VoD said “I know im innocent and if I say it enough with enough conviction people might believe me”. Which very subtly implies that he knew mozs was actually innocent. (I know, this is a bit overanalytical. But I just for some reason cannot let it go completely. This will probably not be my last reflection on the matter.)

[thevampireofdusseldorf]

Nice nit picking Tyger, I have just replaced into a game day two and it is very hard to get a read on the whole game and I can understand your nit picking and it does bring up things some people may have missed or overlooked. The comment you find odd was written directly to moz in addressing the way I saw how he was playing. I will give you one quote but you can have a good look over mozs post ifyou wish

No, my entire line of logic is "Fuck off, I'm innocent".

This was my second game I joined I believe and have just finished my first game the other day, so back then and still kinda now I am not sure on what roles are likely in what games and I thought it a genuine possibility that moz could have been the jester.

[thevampireofdusseldorf]

Ah missed something as for the three I have no idea now who exactly I was refering at the time but having a look back I think cephrir QF and windkirby.

[Talitha]

I'm sick, see v/la. Can replace me if necessary

[Pink Puppy]

PP- why are you still voting for me?

I still think you're scum...


Can you explain to me why you liked aggressive play on D1 and then asked me why I was being so aggressive on D2?

Yeah, so I'm being a little aggressive. Get over it. I really don't care what you think of my tone, feel free to stop telling me you think I sound patronizing. Disregarding peooples' arguments because their tone is offensive to you is not going to get you anywhere besides lynched.

Pink Puppy, you're pursuing this very hard and not really giving VoD the benefit of the doubt at all. I do see what you mean with some of your points, but I can't tell exactly how serious you are about this from your posts. So here's a question: Based on the evidence we have and that you are talking about, do you want us run VoD up to a claim right now? Or do you simply think he's the most suspicious and want to have your vote somewhere, like wk does?

Seems like it's fine for you to ba aggressive, but not for other people to be. I also think you were a lot more forceful in all your posts D1 and less in D2. What happened?

[EmpTyger]

Feel better soon, Talitha!

[Cephrir]

I still think you're scum...

Okay.... why?

That quote you took from me on D2 wasn't criticizing you for being aggressive. I wasn't being sarcastic, I actually couldn't tell how aggressive you were trying to be and wanted to know.

I toned it down a bit on D2 because, well, D1 is D1. On D1, you sometimes need to be aggressive to get reactions out of people and/or to get things to actually happen. I also am not as sure about my suspects right now as I was about moz.

[QuantumFruit]

@darkdude: In response to this statement of yours: "But we seem to be delaying scum hunting." On the contrary, I think it is scum-hunting.

@EmpTyger: In response to the vote on windkirby and brief mention of suspicion on Cephrir - In my first and most recent game of mafia, I was scum. In that game, it was very easy to make people look like scum by their overdefensiveness. This led me to believe it was a reasonable scum tell (granted, it was a newbie game and everyone was pretty mediocre at scum-hunting, so it was easy to mislead town). They didn't point out anything else as scummy and agreed with my overdefensiveness bit. If overdefensiveness is something that makes someone scummy and windkirby was displaying such tendencies, it was necessary to point that out. I've rethought this, but with context and more scumtells it's a valid thing to look into.

I was more suspicious of windkirby than Cephrir, but while I agreed with a lot of Cephrir's reasoning, it seemed like he always just wanted to move on. I don't know if he felt like it would implicate him (or, if he is scum, a scum-buddy also). I thought it was something to point out.

[Akonas]

@VoD: I understood that it was an attempt at humor; it still rubbed me somewhat the wrong way. You seemed to be using humor to cover up the fact that you'd gone too far and try to back down.

@Cephrir: Suspicion is not the same thing as wanting someone to get lynched/supporting a wagon.

But if you thought it was actually a mistake, why were you still suspicious?

I don't recall saying that; I'm still suspicious of him, and I don't know whether it was a mistake.

Vikingfan especially seemed completely fine with lynching darkdude, and that bothers me.

Why?

Taking someone's life should always be serious business. But seriously, though, we don't want to lynch a townie.

---

Akonas: it's not the fact that you didn't like me, it's the fact that you felt the need to buddy up to Talitha in the process. So it's not OMGUS.

Fair enough.

---

The argument that someone is "reactive" and therefore must be scum, does not fly with me -- it must be combined with other factors for me to care. The whole game is reacting to what people say.

Right, the game is all based on what other people have said and reacting to it. But there's a difference between waiting for someone to accuse you or just riding whatever wagon's going at the moment (not looking for scum) and actively reading, rereading, interpreting (yes, I know this is quite idealistic and just about nobody always lives up to it).

Maybe it's just that me and Cephrir think differently. But his type of arguments seem like scum arguments to me. In all fairness, I have seen many people trying to use the "defensive ZOMG!" argument. But

I just think it's total crap every time.

I disagree.

---

Akonas: it's not the fact that you didn't like me, it's the fact that you felt the need to buddy up to Talitha in the process. So it's not OMGUS.

Enh... I don't know about that; I was just saying that I liked where she was going. Take it as scummy if you like; I don't see it.

---

I find it interesting that people are saying they were really sure that they found mozsuggs scum. I didn't see him as all that overtly scummy; more overtly moronic. But when people do that, more often than not they are town. The problem is that they then proceed to clog up the work and cause problems for town.

I would've liked to say more, but I haven't the time. I'll be gone Tuesday and Wednesday.

[Cephrir]

was more suspicious of windkirby than Cephrir, but while I agreed with a lot of Cephrir's reasoning, it seemed like he always just wanted to move on.

There have been quite a few things brought up that I think are weak tells; I also tend to want to decide my suspicions by tyaking all of someone's posts into account rather than lynching them based on one thing. That's probably why.

Taking someone's life should always be serious business. But seriously, though, we don't want to lynch a townie.

I don't follow. Do you know he's a townie? More seriously, why were you suspicious of vikingfan for being suspicious of dd, but not anyone else who is/was suspicious of him?

Right, the game is all based on what other people have said and reacting to it. But there's a difference between waiting for someone to accuse you or just riding whatever wagon's going at the moment (not looking for scum) and actively reading, rereading, interpreting (yes, I know this is quite idealistic and just about nobody always lives up to it).

/agree

I find it interesting that people are saying they were really sure that they found mozsuggs scum. I didn't see him as all that overtly scummy; more overtly moronic. But when people do that, more often than not they are town. The problem is that they then proceed to clog up the work and cause problems for town.

I don't agree. Stupidity =/= town. Would you let idiot scum ride by because they're idiots? Didn't think so. moz was obviously either awful scum or even worse town at the point we went after him, and I'm pretty sure most of us thought the scum option was more likely.

[darkdude]

You’re conceding that Cephrir was right about windkirby- but yet you’ve left your vote on Cephrir!

Hey, if you read the last part you would notice that I was not sure whether I should vote for him or not...

On the contrary, I think it is scum-hunting.

I guess it is possible. Depends on one's perspective, I guess. We certainly are talking a lot, and that's a good thing.